NEW DELHI: Supreme Court on Friday took serious view of an alleged attempt by a “revered member of the higher judiciary” to influence a judicial member of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Chennai, and said the matter will be dealt with appropriately on the administrative side by CJI B R Gavai.Hours after the hearing, CJI Gavai told TOI that he was examining documents. “I will take an appropriate decision soon,” he said. While hearing a case under the Insolvency Bankruptcy Code, NCLAT judicial member Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma had said on Aug 13 that “one of the most revered members of the higher judiciary of this country” had approached him to secure a favourable order, and recused from hearing the case. Justice Sharma did not reveal the name of the judge, who had sent him a WhatsApp message to favour one of the parties, suspended director of KLSR Infratech Ltd, which was facing IBC proceedings.Appearing for a firm affected by the recusal order and demanding action against the judge who tried to influence the NCLAT member, advocate Prashant Bhushan, while making a submission before a bench of CJI-designate Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, called for an FIR under the Prevention of Corruption Act or an in-house inquiry.FIR or in-house probe? SC refuses comment on NCLAT ‘influence bid’ Noting the seriousness of the matter, the bench said under the existing legal framework for fixing accountability on constitutional court judges, the important issue raised by the petitioner should not be taken up on the judicial side.“Action will have to be initiated at the highest level (of judiciary or CJI) against the one who attempted to interfere with the administration of justice. If SC takes this issue on the judicial side, then it would run counter to the power vested in the highest authority. The highest authority cannot be guided by judicial orders to take a decision,” Justice Kant said. “We will not comment whether an FIR should be registered under PC Act, or an in-house inquiry is to be ordered,” the bench said.
