Judge Who Sought Favours Dodges In-House Probe With Retirement? Maybe Not

A high court chief justice who tried to influence a National Company Law Appellate Tribunal member in Chennai for a ruling in favour of a company has narrowly escaped an in-house inquiry due to his retirement and other reasons.

This does not mean he is completely out of the arc of accountability.

The new Chief Justice of India Surya Kant can still recommend filing of a first information report (FIR) under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Former Chief Justice of India BR Gavai had sought a report from National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) judicial member Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma, who had revealed in an open court that "one of the most revered members of the higher judiciary of this country" had approached him to secure a favourable order and recused himself from hearing the case.

By the time Justice Sharma sent a detailed report, the high court chief justice in question had retired. Due to this, a formal in-house inquiry could not be ordered against him.

During a hearing in the Supreme Court on November 14, lawyer Prashant Bhushan had said that according to his information, "the message came from the Chief Justice of a high court" to the judicial member of the company's appellate tribunal.

The Supreme Court then told NCLAT chairperson Justice Ashok Bhushan to hear the matter in a bench headed by him and adjudicate the dispute at the earliest. The Supreme Court also directed the interim resolution professional (IRP) appointed by the National Company Law Tribunal at Hyderabad to proceed in the insolvency dispute.

According to the bench, the judicial member recorded the incident in his order before recusing himself from hearing the matter, and that was enough for looking at the issue on the administrative side.

The petition, filed by AS Met Corp Private Ltd, arises from proceedings before the NCLAT Chennai relating to the insolvency of KLSR Infratech Ltd.