The Karnataka High Court judge who has alleged a transfer threat for pulling up the state Anti-Corruption Bureau, raising issues of the judiciary’s independence, was on Tuesday restrained by the Supreme Court from passing any orders in the matter for the next three days.

The top court issued the directive on a petition from the Karnataka ACB and its chief ADG Seemanth Kumar Singh, the “powerful” police officer who the high court judge had implied had connections in Delhi and was responsible for his ordeal.

The top court’s order comes a day after Justice H.P. Sandesh had placed on record the oral revelation he had made in open court a week earlier.

On July 4, Justice Sandesh had told the ACB counsel “your ADGP is so powerful” and added that a fellow judge had indirectly warned him about a possible transfer. On Monday, while putting the matter in writing and alleging “an attack on the independence of judiciary”, he fixed the next hearing for Wednesday.

In the Supreme Court on Tuesday, solicitor-general Tushar Mehta, appearing for the ACB chief, complained that Justice Sandesh had passed his written orders on Monday even after being told the matter had been listed for hearing on Tuesday before the top court.

The order passed by a bench headed by Chief Justice N.V. Ramana said: “It is stated that though this court is looking into the matter today, the learned judge had directed hearing of the matter tomorrow and had also passed some speaking (written) orders.”

The bench, which included Justices Krishna Murari and Hima Kohli, added: “Taking into consideration this, we think it is fit and proper to require the learned judge to defer the hearing for three days. List the matter for Friday.”

Justice Sandesh had in his written order on Monday said a fellow high court judge – whom he didn’t name — had told him about receiving a call from Delhi and cautioned him about the head of the ACB, a police agency under the state home ministry.

He said this happened on July 1 while he was attending the farewell dinner for Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi.

“A(n) hon’ble sitting judge came and sat by the side of me and stated that he received a call from Delhi (not disclosed the name) and said that the person who called from Delhi, enquired about me,” Justice Sandesh’s written order says.

“And immediately I replied that I am not affiliated to any political party and the hon’ble judge did not stop the same there itself and further said that ADGP is from north India and he is powerful and also gave an instance of transfer of senior judge of this court to some other state and told that for no mistake on his part, he was transferred….”

The order added: “The same is nothing but an attack on the independence of judiciary and interference in dispensation of justice.”

On July 4, Justice Sandesh had orally told the ACB counsel in open court: “Your ADGP seems to be so powerful…. Some person has spoken to one of our high court judges. (The) judge came and sat with me and he says, giving an example of transferring one of the judges to some other district…. I will not hesitate to mention the name of the judge also.

“I am going to protect the independence of the judiciary at the cost of my judgeship. This should not happen. I will record the same in the order itself.”

His revelation had shocked the Bar, which expressed solidarity with the judge, and prompted Opposition parties to allege attempts by politically connected police officers to intimidate and influence the judiciary.

The oral revelation of July 4 had come while Justice Sandesh was hearing a bail plea from deputy tehsildar P.S. Mahesh. The official had been arrested on the charge of accepting a bribe of Rs 5 lakh in exchange for securing a favourable order from Bangalore Urban deputy commissioner J. Manjunath in a land dispute case.

Justice Sandesh had asked the ACB why the FIR did not name Manjunath although the investigators had admitted that Mahesh had told them he had accepted the bribe on behalf of the deputy commissioner. Manjunath was arrested hours after Justice Sandesh pulled up the ACB for not doing its job and, instead, protecting the corrupt.

In his order on Monday, Justice Sandesh said: “The chief secretary should consider before posting an officer, which is for prevention of corruption, the officer must have credibility and also to take the helm of affairs of the institution to greater heights.”

He added that “external influence or internal influence cannot be a criteri(on) while posting officers to the institution”.

On Tuesday, Singh’s counsel Amit Kumar told the apex court that Justice Sandesh had passed his orders without serving his client with a notice or giving him any opportunity to defend himself. He said the judge had gone to the extent of reading out portions from Singh’s annual confidential report in open court.

During Monday’s hearing, when the ACB counsel asked who had issued the (transfer) threat, Justice Sandesh said, without elaborating, that he had informed the authority concerned.

“Let there be an inquiry. I have already intimated that there is a threat to me,” he said.

When the senior counsel persisted, the judge said: “According to you I am making false submissions. Now I will place it on record.”

Additional reporting by K.M. Rakesh from Bangalore