BREAKING| Supreme Court Requests Karnataka HC Judge, Who Made Revelations Of Transfer Threat, To Defer Hearing In Case Against ACB For 3 Days

The Supreme Court on Tuesday requested Justice HP Sandesh of Karnataka High Court, who has been passing several adverse remarks and directions against the Anti-Corruption Bureau of Karnataka, to defer the hearing in the case for three more days.A bench led by the Chief Justice of India made this request as the order passed by Justice Sandesh yesterday, where he recorded that he had received a threat of transfer from a sitting judge for passing orders against the ACB Chief, is not yet uploaded. "We request the learned judge to defer the hearing for a period of three days to enable us to look into the order passed on July 11. List the matter on Friday", the bench dictated the order. The bench of CJI NV Ramanna, Justices Krishna Murari and Hima Kohli was considering the petitions filed filed by the Anti-Corruption Bureau of Karnataka and its chief Seemant Kumar Singh ADGP against certain adverse observations made by Justice Sandesh.The ACB Chief ADGP Seemant Kumar Singh had become the centre of controversy last week after Justice HP Sandesh of the High Court made a sensational statement in the open court that he received indirect threats of transfer after passing several directions against ACB. Yesterday, Justice Sandesh recorded in a written order the threat of transfer he recieved for monitoring the ACB investigation.Expressing deep disappointment with the ACB investigation in a corruption case related to Deputy Commissioner (Urban), Justice Sandesh had passed a series of orders directing the ACB to produce all the closure reports filed by it.Hearing before Supreme CourtToday, Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta, appearing for the State of Karnataka, submitted that the single judge should have refrained from passing the order yesterday, when the Supreme Court was to hear the Special Leave Petition today. The SG requested that the case be assigned to a bench led by the Acting Chief Justice.The SG said that the directions have been passed while considering a regular bail application of an accused in a corruption case. Although the High Court has the power to monitor the investigation in a case, such power cannot be invoked while exercising bail jurisdiction under Section 439 CrPC, the SG added. The proper course would be to register it as a PIL and transfer it to the bench dealing with PILs, the SG submitted.Saying that the single judge has posted the matter tomorrow, the SG requested that the hearing be stayed for at least two days.The counsel appearing for ADGP Seemant Kumar Singh submitted that strictures were passed against him by the judge without hearing him. He submitted that the ACRs of the officer were read out in open court and several oral remarks were made against him, without giving him an opportunity of hearing."Strictures have been passed against me without hearing me. My ACR's are being read in open court from 2009. I was not been allowed to speak yesterday also and directions have been passed to consider my post also", the counsel submitted.What were the remarks made by Justice Sandesh?Justice Sandesh had orally said that the ADGP was a powerful person and that a High Court judge had given him the example of another judge getting transferred for making similar interventions. Justice Sandesh had made these oral remarks after expressing dissatisfaction with the investigation in a case related to Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru (Urban). The judge had earlier passed directions to the ACB to produce all the closure reports filed it since its inception. In another development in the case on Monday, Justice Sandesh recorded in writing the threat of transfer he received from a sitting judge. While adjourning the case to July 13 after the ACB's counsel informed about the SLP filed in Supreme Court, Justice Sandesh stated in the order as follows : "... on account of superannuation, a dinner was arranged by this court to bid farewell to Honourable Chief Justice on 01-07-2022. A sitting judge who came and sat by the side of me started with the word…"He had received a call from Delhi (not disclosed the name) and says the person who called from Delhi, inquired about me and immediately I replied I am not affiliated to any political party. The judge did not stop the same there itself, and said that ADGP is from North India and he is powerful. He also gave an instance of transfer of...." Case Title : Anti Corruption Bureau Karnataka vs Mahesh PS |Diary No.20631/2022

BREAKING| Supreme Court Requests Karnataka HC Judge, Who Made Revelations Of Transfer Threat, To Defer Hearing In Case Against ACB For 3 Days

Shruti Kakkar

Tags