The Supreme Court on Friday decided that it will handle, on the administrative side, a writ petition seeking a court-supervised investigation into a rare and serious 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 deliver a favourable order in a pending insolvency appeal.

A bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi directed that the writ petition be treated as a representation placing relevant material before the Chief Justice of India. The Court also ordered that the underlying insolvency appeal—where the revelation took place—be shifted from the NCLAT Chennai Bench to its Principal Bench in New Delhi.

“As for the other issues raised, they are of great significance. We trust that the competent authority has examined them and taken necessary measures. These concerns can be effectively handled on the administrative side,” the bench stated, disposing of the writ with directions to forward it to the CJI.

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

Appearing for the petitioner, Advocate Prashant Bhushan submitted that their information suggests the messages originated from “the Chief Justice of a High Court.” He argued that an elaborate investigation may not be required since Justice Sharma has preserved the relevant mobile communications.

The matter stems from insolvency proceedings relating to KLSR Infratech Ltd before the NCLAT Chennai Bench. On 13 August 2025, during a hearing, Justice Sharma revealed in open court that he had received messages from a senior judge urging him to rule in favour of a party. He also displayed the messages on his phone to one of the lawyers present and immediately recused himself. The petitioner alleges that the attempted influence was intended to benefit the opposing party.

Justice Sharma recorded in the order uploaded later that day that he was contacted by “one of the most revered members of the higher judiciary,” but the order does not specify on whose behalf the approach was made—an omission the petitioner argues creates avoidable uncertainty.

The writ seeks registration of an FIR for offences arising from the incident, including provisions under the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. It relies on the Supreme Court’s rulings in Lalita Kumari and K. Veeraswami, contending that allegations of corruption involving members of the judiciary cannot be substituted with internal or “in-house” inquiries.

A.S. Met Corp submits that it cannot seek sanction from the CJI because it does not know the identity of the judge who allegedly sent the messages. It requests a court-monitored probe by an independent agency, along with preservation of electronic evidence, including video and audio recordings of the 13 August proceedings. The petitioner claims the NCLAT Registrar declined access to these materials citing absence of enabling procedural rules.

The plea notes media reports suggesting that the Supreme Court had asked its Secretary General to initiate an inquiry. However, no public order exists, and the process lacks transparency and participation, it says.

The petitioner seeks directions for (i) FIR registration, (ii) securing and producing electronic records, (iii) a court-supervised investigation led by a retired Supreme Court judge, and (iv) protective measures ensuring neutral management of KLSR Infratech by the Interim Resolution Professional during the inquiry.

Case: M/s A.S. Met Corp Private Limited v. The Registrar
*W.P. (Crl.) No. 440/2025