The Supreme Court of India is addressing a serious allegation concerning an attempt to influence a judicial member of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT). The claim surfaced after Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma, a judicial member of the NCLAT Chennai bench, revealed in open court that he had been contacted by a "revered member of the higher judiciary" who pressed him to rule favorably in a pending insolvency appeal.
The incident occurred during a hearing on August 13, 2025, regarding the insolvency case of KLSR Infratech Ltd. Justice Sharma stated that he received messages on his mobile phone from the senior judge. He also displayed the messages on his phone to one of the lawyers present and immediately recused himself from the case.
M/s A.S. Met Corp Pvt Ltd, a firm affected by the recusal order, filed a writ petition seeking a court-monitored investigation into Justice Sharma's claims. Advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing the firm, argued for an FIR under the Prevention of Corruption Act or an in-house inquiry. However, the Supreme Court bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi decided that the matter should be handled administratively by the Chief Justice of India (CJI). The court has transferred the underlying case from the NCLAT Chennai Bench to its Principal Bench in New Delhi.
The Supreme Court refrained from ordering a criminal probe, instead directing that the writ petition be treated as a representation to the CJI. This move effectively channels the grievance into the judiciary's internal mechanism for addressing misconduct. The CJI will now examine the material and decide on the appropriate course of action, which could range from an informal inquiry to the constitution of an in-house committee.
A key challenge in the investigation is that Justice Sharma did not reveal the name of the judge who contacted him. The petitioner stated it cannot seek sanction from the CJI because it does not know the identity of the alleged judge. According to sources, the message to Justice Sharma came from the Chief Justice of a high court.
The Supreme Court's decision to handle the matter on the administrative side underscores the sensitivity of the issue and the need to protect the judiciary's independence. Referring the matter to the CJI allows for an internal inquiry without creating a binding precedent that could interfere with the CJI's authority.
The legal community is closely watching the developments, recognizing the implications for judicial accountability and transparency. The incident raises concerns about potential abuse of judicial power and the importance of maintaining public confidence in the justice system. The handling of this case will set a precedent for addressing similar allegations of judicial impropriety in the future.
CJI Gavai told TOI that he was examining documents and will take an appropriate decision soon.
