E-Paper
SC asks Karnataka HC judge who spoke of threat to defer hearing
A day after a Karnataka high court judge passed an order claiming that he indirectly received a threat of transfer for an adverse order in a corruption case, the Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to examine the appeal filed by the state anti-corruption bureau (ACB) against the order, and asked the high court judge not to proceed in the matter till it takes up the case on Friday.
A day after a Karnataka high court judge passed an order claiming that he indirectly received a threat of transfer for an adverse order in a corruption case, the Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to examine the appeal filed by the state anti-corruption bureau (ACB) against the order, and asked the high court judge not to proceed in the matter till it takes up the case on Friday.
A bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) NV Ramana said: “We have thought it fit to request the judge to defer the hearing for a period of three days to enable us to look into the order passed (by the high court judge) on July 11. List the matter on Friday.”
The high court judge in question, justice HP Sandesh, created a flutter during the court proceeding on July 4 when said that he was threatened with a transfer on July 1 when attending the farewell dinner for the then chief justice of Karnataka.
“Your ADGP is so powerful… Some person spoke to one of our high court judges. The judge came and sat with me and he says, giving an example of transferring one of the judges to some other district… I will not hesitate to mention the name of the judge also,” justice Sandesh said last week, the first time he mentioned the incident.
The high court judge was hearing a bail plea filed by deputy tehsildar PS Mahesh who was arrested in a graft case registered in May this year for allegedly accepting a bribe of ₹5 lakh to pass a favourable order in a land dispute pertaining to Bengaluru. The revenue officer told the high court that, despite his statement, the money was received at the instance of a deputy commissioner whose name was not mentioned in the FIR.
The judge sought details of the probe from ACB, and summoned its chief, additional director general of police (ADGP) Seemant Kumar Singh, to know why the deputy commissioner was not made an accused. Justice Sandesh directed the state to produce the annual confidential report (ACR) of Singh, and sought all B-reports (on closure of cases after investigation) prepared by ACB since 2016.
Referring to Singh’s past, where he faced an investigation in connection with an illegal mining case while being the superintendent of police, Bellary, the judge passed scathing observations against the officer, asking the state why such “tainted persons” were appointed in ACB, and even called ACB a “collection centre”.
On Tuesday, ADGP Singh, appearing through advocate Amit Kumar, urged the top court to expunge these remarks made without hearing him.
Appearing for Karnataka, solicitor general Tushar Mehta complained that although the HC judge was informed about the hearing before the top court on Tuesday, the judge heard the matter on Monday and kept the next hearing for Wednesday. Mehta sought stay of the proceedings before the high court, and commented on how Singh’s ACR, meant to be a confidential report, was read out by the judge in open court. He added that the bail matter on which these proceedings have been initiated is yet not decided.
The top court bench, also comprising justices Krishna Murari and Hima Kohli, told Mehta that it will not stay the proceedings altogether, but agreed to examine the matter, and requested the high court judge to not proceed until then.
A copy of the July 11 order passed by the high court judge was not available before the court. Later in the day, the order was uploaded on the court’s website. In it, the judge described the manner in which he was indirectly threatened with an order of transfer by another sitting judge of the same high court.
The order said that, on July 1, when the judge went to attend a farewell dinner hosted in honour of the high court chief justice who was retiring, another sitting judge came to him and said that the ADGP is quite powerful, and in the past, a judge of this court was transferred to some other state for no mistake on his part.
Justice Sandesh in his order said: “The same is nothing but an attack on the independence of judiciary and interference in dispensation of justice.”
