Supreme Court Addresses Allegations of High Court Judge Seeking Favorable NCLAT Ruling

New Delhi:

The Supreme Court on Friday addressed a remarkable allegation that a senior high court judge approached a National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) judicial member in Chennai seeking a favorable ruling for a company. The court determined that this matter would be handled by the Chief Justice of India through administrative channels.

During proceedings, advocate Prashant Bhushan informed the court that based on his information, "the message came from the Chief Justice of a high court" to the NCLAT judicial member.

Recognizing the gravity of these claims, a bench comprising Chief Justice of India-designate Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi transferred the case from the NCLAT Chennai bench to the principal NCLAT bench in New Delhi. This was the same case from which the judicial member had already recused himself.

"The larger issue raised in the matter is of vital importance and will be dealt with by the Chief Justice of India on the administrative side," the bench informed Bhushan, who represented AS Metcorp Private Ltd, the company whose case triggered the judicial member's recusal.

The court requested NCLAT Chairperson Justice Ashok Bhushan to personally lead a bench hearing this matter and resolve the dispute promptly.

Additionally, the Supreme Court directed the interim resolution professional (IRP) appointed by the National Company Law Tribunal in Hyderabad to proceed with the insolvency proceedings.

According to the bench, the judicial member's documentation of the incident in his recusal order provided sufficient grounds for administrative review of the issue.

"Consequently, we direct that the company appeal pending before NCLAT, Chennai be transferred alongwith all records to the Principal bench, NCLAT at New Delhi in the peculiar facts of the case. We request the President, NCLAT to list the company appeal before his bench and decide the same after notice to the contesting party at the earliest," the Supreme Court ordered.

The court further noted that these matters held significant public importance and that appropriate authorities must examine available evidence and take necessary actions.

"In any case, all these issues can be effectively dealt with by the Chief Justice of India on the administrative side. We thus deem it appropriate to keep this writ petition as a representation bringing on record information for consideration by CJI. Let the law take its own course," the court added.

Bhushan argued that the evidence suggested an offense under the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA) and that appropriate action should include filing a case against the senior judicial officer who made the approach.

He further revealed that according to his sources, "the message came from the Chief Justice of a High Court."

Bhushan claimed the NCLAT judicial member had preserved screenshots of WhatsApp messages and shown them to parties in the insolvency dispute, indicating he was approached by a highly respected member of the higher judiciary requesting a favorable ruling for a specific party.

The bench declined further comment, having referred the matter to the Chief Justice of India for administrative review.

The petition, filed by AS Met Corp Private Ltd, stems from proceedings before NCLAT Chennai concerning KLSR Infratech Ltd's insolvency.

On August 13, 2025, Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma created a stir by announcing in open court that he had received messages from a senior member of the higher judiciary pressing him to favor a particular party. He showed these messages to counsel present before immediately recusing himself.

According to the petitioner, the approach was allegedly made to benefit the opposing party. Justice Sharma's order, uploaded later that day, noted he was approached by "one of the most revered members of the higher judiciary" but didn't specify whose interests were being promoted.

The petition before the Supreme Court sought registration of an FIR for offenses under the Prevention of Corruption Act and provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

It referenced previous Supreme Court rulings that criminal investigations into alleged judicial corruption cannot be substituted by internal "in-house" inquiries.

The private firm also requested a court-monitored investigation by an independent agency after preserving electronic evidence, including video and audio recordings of the August 13 proceedings, which the NCLAT registrar refused to share, citing lack of enabling regulations.