In a significant development, Justice Rakesh Kumar, a judicial member of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), tendered his resignation following the Supreme Court’s issuance of a contempt notice against him. The notice was issued due to Kumar’s judgment that seemingly defied an interim order passed by the Apex Court.
During the hearing of the contempt case, Senior Advocate PS Patwalia, representing Rakesh Kumar, informed the bench led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud about the resignation. Patwalia quoted Kumar, stating,
“After this episode, the judicial member says that he cannot continue in this post.”
He further emphasized Kumar’s long-standing, unblemished career, saying,
“At best, it was an error of judgement at that time. He has absolutely no intention to affront your lordships’ order. He has no desire to cling on to any assignment. Please take a considerate, liberal view. He has had a very very long career.”
Also read- Supreme Court Rejects Manish Sisodia’s Bail Plea (lawchakra.in)
The core of the controversy revolves around the Annual General Meeting (AGM) of Finolex cables. The NCLAT had earlier passed an order directing a status quo on the AGM results. However, on October 13, despite the Supreme Court’s directive in the morning session to defer the pronouncement of its order until the AGM results were submitted by the scrutinizer, the NCLAT bench, comprising of Rakesh Kumar and Dr. Alok Srivastava, proceeded to deliver its judgment.
Reacting to this, the Supreme Court directed NCLAT Chairperson Justice Ashok Bhushan to investigate the allegations. Both members of the NCLAT bench provided explanations. Dr. Alok Srivastava stated,
“As per procedure, judgments are announced before mentions are heard. Hence, he was not aware of the Supreme Court’s order.”
On the other hand, Justice Rakesh Kumar asserted that
“the supplementary list is uploaded a day before and as per procedure, the verdict was delivered.”
During a subsequent hearing on October 18, Chief Justice DY Chandrachud expressed his dissatisfaction with the NCLAT’s conduct. He remarked,
“After they were told specifically, how can the scrutiniser take opinion from former CJI and not declare the results.. let them come to this court and we will send them marching off to Tihar jail. Then they will understand the power of this court.”
He further added,
“These people with big resources and money they think they can take the court for a ride and this will not happen at all.”
The Supreme Court, after examining the CCTV footage of the NCLAT proceedings, noted that the lawyers had orally informed the NCLAT members about the Supreme Court’s order. CJI Chandrachud asked,
“It’s very obvious that the fact of the order being passed was mentioned to them. What was in order was mentioned to them. They say order wasn’t communicated to them officially. What is officially? How do we officially communicate? Should the CJI call the President of the NCLAT and say ‘hey, one of my colleagues passed this order today?'”
The Supreme Court then set aside the NCLAT’s October 13 judgment and directed a re-hearing by a bench led by Justice Ashok Bhushan. Contempt of court proceedings were initiated against the NCLAT members, with show cause notices issued to both.
Technical member Dr. Srivastava tendered an unconditional apology, emphasizing that the judicial member controlled the bench’s procedure. Recognizing his apology, the Supreme Court decided not to pursue the matter further concerning the technical member but censured the judicial member for his actions.
In conclusion, this episode underscores the importance of adherence to the directives of the Supreme Court by all judicial bodies and serves as a stark reminder of the consequences of defying its orders.
Also read- Parliamentary Panel Recommends Reinstating Adultery Law And Section 377 (lawchakra.in)
