SC stays Karnataka HC judge’s proceedings against anti-corruption bureau

The bench, headed by CJI NV Ramana, which also included justices Krishna Murari and Hima Kohli, noted that instead of considering the bail application, the judge focussed on several other things

The Supreme Court on Monday stayed efforts by a Karnataka high court judge to ascertain the impartiality and competence of the state anti-corruption bureau (ACB), noting the judge’s orders, including the one in which he claimed to have indirectly received a threat of transfer for an adverse order in a corruption case, were not relevant to the bail proceedings pending before him.

SC stays Karnataka HC judge’s proceedings against anti-corruption bureau

The bench, headed by Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, which also included justices Krishna Murari and Hima Kohli, noted that instead of considering the bail application, the judge focussed on several other things which may not be relevant and beyond the scope of the pending proceedings.

“We stay proceedings like asking for service report, ... (and other) observations (of the judge) on ACB etc. Prima facie, the observations made were unconnected to the bail petition. The conduct of the ACB officer is unconnected to the bail petition.”

It asked the judge in question, justice HP Sandesh, to take up and decide only the bail plea filed by deputy tehsildar PS Mahesh.

Mahesh 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 in Bengaluru. He told the high court that the money was received at the instance of a deputy commissioner whose name was not mentioned in the FIR.

While hearing the bail plea on July 4, justice Sandesh passed strictures against the ACB and additional director general of police (ADGP) Seemant Kumar Singh for not making deputy commissioner an accused in the case.

On July 12, the bench agreed to examine the appeal filed by the Karnataka ACB against the order passed by justice Sandesh on July 4 and 11, and asked the high court judge not to proceed in the matter till it takes up the case on the next date. ADGP Singh also filed a petition to expunge the remarks against him.

Justice Sandesh created a flutter during the court proceeding on July 4 when he stated 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.

On July 11, while hearing the bail plea, the judge sought details of the probe from ACB, and summoned its chief, ADGP Singh, to know why the deputy commissioner was not made an accused. He also 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 of 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 July 11, the judge issued a formal order describing the manner in which he was indirectly threatened with an order of transfer by another sitting judge of the same high court.

The July 11 order claimed that when the judge in question went to attend a farewell dinner hosted in honour of the high court chief justice who was retiring, a sitting judge warned him that the ADGP was quite powerful and that a judge of the court had been transferred.

The Supreme Court also set aside this order.

It will now hear after three weeks, ACB’s and Singh’s pleas seeking that the adverse remarks of the judge be expunged.