SC to Examine Plea on NCLAT Member’s Disclosure of Judicial Influence

(By Syed Ali Taher Abedi)

New Delhi, Friday: The Supreme Court on Friday decided to deal on its administrative side a writ petition seeking a court-monitored investigation into an unprecedented disclosure by NCLAT Judicial Member Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma, who stated in open court that he had been approached by “one of the most revered members of the higher judiciary” to pass a favourable order in a pending insolvency appeal.

A Division Bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi directed that the writ petition be treated as a representation and placed before the Chief Justice of India for appropriate consideration. In a parallel direction, the Bench also ordered the transfer of the underlying insolvency appeal from the NCLAT Chennai Bench to the Principal Bench at New Delhi.

The petition was filed by M/s A.S. Met Corp Pvt. Ltd., a respondent in the insolvency proceedings concerning KLSR Infratech Ltd. The respondents named in the plea include the Registrar and Secretary General of the Supreme Court, the Union of India, KLSR Infratech Ltd., and Attluru Sreenivasulu Reddy—former director of KLSR and appellant before the Chennai Bench.

Appearing for the petitioner, Senior Advocate Prashant Bhushan submitted that, “according to our information, the message came from the Chief Justice of a High Court.” He further argued that a protracted investigation may not be required since Justice Sharma has preserved the mobile phone messages that allegedly attempted to influence the judicial outcome.

Justice Sharma’s Disclosure

The controversy traces back to August 13, when during a hearing before the NCLAT Chennai Bench, Justice Sharma disclosed in open court that he had received messages from a senior member of the higher judiciary pressuring him to rule in favour of one of the parties in the KLSR Infratech insolvency matter. He reportedly showed the messages to a counsel present in the courtroom and subsequently recused himself from the case.

In an order uploaded later, Justice Sharma recorded that he had been approached by “one of the most revered members of the higher judiciary,” though he did not specify on whose behalf the communication was made. This omission, the petitioner alleges, creates ambiguity and necessitates an independent criminal probe.

Plea Seeks FIR, Court-Monitored Investigation

A.S. Met Corp seeks registration of an FIR under provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, arguing that the allegations—if true—constitute a grave attempt to interfere with the administration of justice.

Relying on Lalita Kumari and K. Veeraswami, the petition contends that allegations of judicial corruption cannot be addressed through internal or in-house inquiries, and that only a formal criminal investigation can ensure impartiality and accountability.

“As regard to the various other concerns raised through the instant writ petition, there can be no quarrel that all such issues are of vital public importance. We believe that the Competent Authority must have examined the available material and taken necessary steps, as may be required. In any case, all these issues can be effectively dealt with by Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India on the administrative side.” Order reads.

The petitioner also asserts that it cannot approach the Chief Justice of India for sanction to prosecute because the identity of the judge alleged to have made the approach is not yet known.

The plea further highlights that media reports suggested the Supreme Court Secretary General had been asked to conduct an inquiry, but no formal order is publicly unavailable. As such, the petitioner argues, the process lacks transparency and stakeholder participation.

“In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we request the Hon’ble Chairperson of the NCLAT to list the said appeal before the bench presided over by His Lordship and decide the same, after issuing notice and giving adequate hearing to the contesting parties, at the earliest. While the petitioner before us has taken a fair stand to extend full cooperation for an early adjudication of the appeal, we direct respondents nos.4 and 5 to, likewise, ensure that no impediment is caused in the expeditious disposal of the appeal. The aforesaid respondents as well as their counsel will extend full cooperation to the bench of the Hon’ble Chairperson for expeditious and timely adjudication of the said Appeal”

Additionally, A.S. Met Corp seeks:

Preservation and production of electronic evidence, including video and audio recordings of the August 13 hearing, which the NCLAT Registry has declined to share due to lack of enabling rules.

A court-monitored investigation by an independent agency under the supervision of a retired Supreme Court judge.

Protective directions to ensure that the interim resolution professional continues neutral management of KLSR Infratech pending the proposed investigation.

Consideration by CJI

With the Supreme Court treating the writ petition as a representation, the matter will now move to the administrative side of the Court for examination by the Chief Justice of India. The Bench made no observation on the merits of the allegations but ensured that the insolvency proceedings continue before a different NCLAT Bench to maintain institutional propriety.

The development marks one of the most serious publicly recorded allegations involving potential interference from within the higher judiciary, placing the spotlight on judicial independence and the mechanisms available to address such claims.