Shashwati Chowdhury
Published on: June 5, 2022 at 17:55 IST
Justice HP Sandesh of the Karnataka High Court revealed controversial details about transfer threats he received while monitoring on certain cases being handled by the State’s Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB). [Mahesh PS v State of Karnataka].
The single Judge revealed that another High Court Judge time had told him about the same after being approached by some persons.
Your ADGP is really powerful. A few people spoke with a Judge in our High Court. The Judge came and sat down with me. He then gave the example of transferring one of the judges to a different district. I won’t hesitate about mentioning the judge’s name, either! He came and sat next to me, and there is threat to this court, remarked Justice Sandesh.
He continued by saying that he is ready for any transfer but would protect the independence of the judiciary even if it meant losing his position as a judge.
“This should not happen. I will record the same in the order itself. You people are encouraging such people – State government as well as…..You are here to protect the institution. Not to do all these things,” he said.
“Why should I hesitate? I will bell the cat even at the cost of my judgeship,“ he said.
He asked the State government explain why it was holding details if they are not culprit.
Justice Sandesh made it apparent that he was not afraid of putting his post on the line for the public good.
The Court was hearing an accused’s application for bail after they were allegedly caught on camera accepting a bribe of 5 lakh in exchange for an order from the Deputy Commissioner’s office.
The conduct of the counsel for the ACB, who went back on a previous occasion made to the court about the production of certain documents related to the investigation, angered Justice Sandesh.
Following lunch, when the court would also issue an order, the case was then set up for further hearing.
When the case was first brought up, Advocate General Prabhuling K Navadgi appeared before the court and sought for time to record the documents that were being sought out for examination. Consequently, the case was adjourned until July 7, 2022.