What TV doesn't, print can't; we deliver.
What TV doesn't, print can't; we deliver.
Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma, a member of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), recused himself from hearing a case.
NEW DELHI: In a significant and rare instance of judicial transparency, Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma, a member of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), recused himself from hearing a case after revealing that his brother had reached out to him via WhatsApp messages seeking advice on the matter. The incident, which highlights the fine line between personal relationships and professional ethics, has raised questions about judicial impartiality.
The communication occurred in the context of a case before the NCLAT bench in Chennai, where Justice Sharma and technical member Jatindranath Swain were hearing an appeal regarding the quashing of a corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) and the restoration of the corporate debtor’s board. The messages from Justice Sharma’s brother, which he received before the hearing, sought guidance on the case. The brother, in an apologetic tone, stated that the request was personal and assured there was no coercion involved.
ALSO READ: Delhi court orders attachment of historic Bikaner House over unsettled arbitral award
In the text messages, he wrote: “Brother, what can be in this paper that I am sending, what is the possibility of it happening, please try to give proper advice. This is a matter of your own court… If I have caused any kind of trouble, then I apologize.”
He also added that the request was non-binding, emphasizing: “There is no pressure of any kind because whatever decision you and the court take, we will accept it. I just request that you reserve this matter as per your discretion, and if there is even the slightest scope, it will be better if you have complete information about it.”
Following this communication, Justice Sharma decided to recuse himself from the case, citing the need to maintain impartiality. In his order, he expressed regret over the situation and stated: “With a very sorry note, I refuse to hear this appeal. Let the matter be placed before the Hon’ble Chairperson for the nomination of another bench.”
ALSO READ: Supreme Court proposes makeshift courtroom in jail for Yasin Malik’s cross-examination
The appellant’s senior counsel, PH Arvindh Pandian, also withdrew from the case after being made aware of the development. Advocate Abhishek Anand represented the liquidator in the matter, which stems from an August 2022 order by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT).
This incident stands out not only because of the judicial recusal but also due to Justice Sharma’s decision to reproduce the text messages verbatim in the official order—a move that is quite rare in such cases. Typically, judges refrain from sharing the specifics of communications that lead to recusals.
This case underscores the critical importance of judicial impartiality and the necessity for judges to avoid any appearance of bias or conflict of interest. While judicial recusals in India are not governed by formal rules, some ethical norms and precedents encourage transparency and fairness in such matters.
