Supreme Court Intervenes in NCLAT Judicial Controversy
The Supreme Court of India has taken decisive action in a sensitive case involving serious allegations made by a judicial member of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT). On Friday, a bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi ordered the transfer of the controversial case from the NCLAT Chennai Bench to the Principal Bench in New Delhi.
Allegations of Judicial Interference
The case originated when Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma, a Judicial Member of the NCLAT Chennai Bench, made startling revelations during proceedings of a Company Appeal related to insolvency proceedings against KLSR Infratech Ltd. In open court, Justice Sharma publicly declared that he had been approached by "one of the most revered members of the higher judiciary of this country" who allegedly requested him to deliver a favorable order.
The judicial member went further to demonstrate evidence by showing messages received on his phone, asserting that he had preserved this digital evidence should any questions arise about the incident. Following this dramatic disclosure, Justice Sharma recused himself from the case and directed that the matter be placed before the Chairperson of NCLAT for reassignment.
Supreme Court's Directives and Observations
The Supreme Court bench acknowledged the extraordinary nature of the case, stating "In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case" they were requesting the Hon'ble President of NCLAT to list the appeal before his own bench. The court emphasized that the matter should be decided "at the earliest" after providing proper notice to all contesting parties.
Regarding the broader implications of the allegations, the court recognized these as issues of "vital public importance" but expressed confidence that the competent authority would examine available material and take necessary steps. The bench specifically mentioned that these matters could be effectively addressed by the Chief Justice of India on the administrative side.
Legal Proceedings and Investigation Demands
During the proceedings, prominent advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing the petitioner A.S. Met Corp Private Limited, outlined potential courses of action. He suggested that the Chief Justice of India could initiate either an in-house enquiry or, given the potential offenses under the Prevention of Corruption Act, permit the filing of an FIR since the allegations involve a judge.
Bhushan further revealed significant information, stating "According to our information, the message came from the Chief Justice of a High Court." He argued that a detailed investigation might be straightforward since Justice Sharma had preserved the crucial messages as evidence.
The Supreme Court has directed that the petition seeking a court-monitored investigation into the matter be placed before the Chief Justice of India for appropriate administrative action. The respondent in the original NCLAT proceedings was Met Corp, adding another layer of complexity to this already multifaceted legal controversy.
