Supreme Court Orders Probe into Alleged Attempt by Higher Judiciary Judge to Influence NCLAT Member

Supreme Court Orders Probe into Alleged Attempt by Higher Judiciary Judge to Influence NCLAT Member

Introduction

The Supreme Court of India has ordered an inquiry into allegations that a judge of the higher judiciary attempted to influence Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma, Judicial Member of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Chennai, in an insolvency matter. The inquiry will be conducted by the Secretary General of the Supreme Court, who has been tasked with ascertaining whether such a call was indeed made by a High Court or Supreme Court judge.

Factual Background

On August 13, 2025, Justice Sharma recused himself from hearing an insolvency appeal filed by Attluru Sreenivasulu Reddy, suspended director of KLSR Infratech Ltd., against AS Met Corp Pvt. Ltd. and another respondent.

In his order, Justice Sharma recorded: “We are anguished to observe, that one of us, Member (Judicial), has been approached by one of the most revered members of the higher judiciary of this country for seeking an order in favour of a particular party. Hence, I recuse to hear the matter.”

Procedural Background

The NCLAT bench, comprising Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma (Judicial) and Jatindranath Swain (Technical), referred the matter to the NCLAT Chairperson for reallocation. With Justice Sharma’s recusal, the case is expected to be placed before a new coram for hearing.

According to reports, Justice Sharma showed lawyers in the courtroom a message he had received on his mobile phone before stepping away from the case. However, the contents of the message were not disclosed and remain unknown.

Contentions and Observations

Allegations of Judicial Interference: The claim suggests that a sitting High Court or Supreme Court judge may have sought to influence the outcome of an insolvency appeal.

Justice Sharma’s Recusal: By stepping aside, Justice Sharma emphasized the need to preserve the integrity and impartiality of the judicial process.

Supreme Court’s Direction: The apex court has entrusted its Secretary General to conduct the inquiry, with further action dependent on the findings.

Reasoning and Analysis

The order of inquiry underscores the Supreme Court’s commitment to ensuring judicial independence and accountability. Allegations of this nature, if proven, could have far-reaching consequences for public confidence in the judiciary. By acting swiftly, the Court seeks to prevent erosion of faith in the system.

Implications

The outcome of this inquiry could be significant for the judiciary as a whole. If the allegations are substantiated, strict action may follow against the judge involved. The case may also prompt a re-examination of institutional safeguards to prevent judicial interference in tribunal proceedings.

Notably, this is not the first time Justice Sharma has recused himself citing attempts at influence. In June 2025, during hearings related to Shri Ramalinga Mills, he stepped aside after reporting similar approaches by parties. Likewise, in November 2024, he recused from a case involving Jeppiar Cements after noting that he had been approached by his own brother to delay proceedings.