The Supreme Court on Friday decided to deal with on its administrative side a writ petition which has been filed seeking a court-monitored investigation into an unprecedented disclosure made by NCLAT Judicial Member Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma that he was approached by “one of the most revered members of the higher judiciary” to pass a favourable order in a pending insolvency appeal.

A bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi directed that the writ petition be treated as a representation bringing material on record to be considered by the Chief Justice of India. The bench also ordered that the insolvency petition, where the controversial revelation occurred, be transferred from the Chennai Bench to the Principal Bench in Delhi.

"As regards the other issues, all such issues are of vital importance. We believe that the competent authority must have examined the matter and taken necessary steps. All these issues can be effectively dealt with on the administrative side," the bench observed while disposing of the petition with a direction to treat it as a representation to the Chief Justice of India.

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

Advocate Prashant Bhsuhan, appearing for the petitioner, submitted, "according to our information, the message came from the Chief Justice of a High Court." Bhushan added that a detailed investigation might not be necessary as the NCLAT member has preserved the mobile phone messages.

The matter arises from proceedings before the NCLAT Chennai relating to the insolvency of KLSR Infratech Ltd.

On 13 August 2025, during the hearing in the NCLAT, Justice Sharma stated in open court that he had received messages from a senior member of the higher judiciary pressing him to rule in favour of a party. He also showed the messages on his phone to one of the counsel present and immediately recused himself. According to the petitioner, the approach was allegedly made to favour the other party.

Justice Sharma recorded in the order, which was uploaded later the same day, that he was approached by “one of the most revered members of the higher judiciary” but did not mention on whose behalf the approach was made. The petitioner contends that the omission creates ambiguity.

The petition seeks registration of an FIR under offences disclosed by the incident, including provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. It invokes the Supreme Court's rulings in Lalita Kumari and K. Veeraswami to argue that a criminal investigation into alleged judicial corruption cannot be substituted by any internal “in-house” fact-finding.

A.S. Met Corp submits it cannot approach the Chief Justice of India for sanction since the identity of the judge alleged to have made the approach is not known to it. It seeks a court-monitored probe by an independent agency after securing the electronic evidence, including video and audio of the 13 August proceedings, which the NCLAT Registrar has refused to share citing lack of enabling rules.

The petition also states that media reports claimed the Supreme Court had asked its Secretary General to conduct an inquiry, but no formal order is available publicly and the process is neither transparent nor participative.

The plea seeks directions for registration of an FIR, preservation and production of electronic records, a court-monitored investigation under a retired Supreme Court judge, and protective directions to ensure continuation of neutral management of KLSR Infratech by the Interim Resolution Professional pending probe.