The Supreme Court Monday stayed a Karnataka High Court order censuring the state police’s Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) and calling for service records of officers, pointing to “irrelevant observations”. The issue of the ACB’s conduct had come up when the High Court was hearing the bail plea of a personal assistant of the Bengaluru (Urban) DC, who was recently arrested by the bureau. “The proceedings before the Karnataka High Court not linked with the proceedings with the accused are stayed. We request the HC to consider the bail application of the accused,” the top court said. A bench comprising Chief Justice of India NV Ramana and Justices Krishna Murari and Hima Kohli directed the case to be listed after three weeks. Justice HP Sandesh of the Karnataka High Court, who had passed the order with remarks against the functioning of the ACB chief — an IPS officer of the Additional DGP (ADGP) rank — had also alleged that he received “threat of transfer” over the ruling. Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for ADGP Seemant Singh, sought the transfer of the case to a different bench of the High Court. Refusing to transfer the case, the Supreme Court said it has to strike a balance. “Sorry, we have to balance both the sides. We cannot be seen to be favouring one side,” CJI Ramana said. Justice Sandesh, who referred to the “threat” during a court hearing on July 4, dictated a written order Monday stating that a fellow judge had approached him with a hint of a warning on July 1 at the farewell dinner for Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi, the former chief justice of Karnataka. According to Justice Sandesh, “a sitting judge” told him that “he had received a call from Delhi (name not disclosed)”. “The person from Delhi asked about me, he said. I told him that I am not affiliated to any party,” Justice Sandesh said. “He said the ADGP is from north India and he is powerful,” the High Court judge said, adding that a reference was also made by the sitting judge to the transfer of another judge. Justice Sandesh said he had reported the perceived threat to the authorities concerned. It affects the independence of the judiciary and amounts to interference with the dispensation of justice, he said.
