SC to re-hear case in which it barred Allahabad HC judge from hearing criminal cases

Having passed an unprecedented order restraining an Allahabad High Court judge from hearing criminal cases “till he demits office”, the Supreme Court has decided to re-list the matter for hearing on Friday.

According to the top court’s cause list, the matter — decided on August 4 — would be heard again by the same Bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan on August 8.

The development comes in the wake of criticism of the order in judicial circles for alleged overreach of judicial powers and an interference with the roster powers of the high court Chief Justice. Under the Constitutional scheme, the Supreme Court does not enjoy administrative control and superintendence over high courts.

Taking note of repeated “erroneous orders” passed by Justice Prashant Kumar of the Allahabad High Court, the Bench led by Justice Pardiwala had restrained him from hearing criminal cases “till he demits office” after he wrongly upheld summons of criminal nature issued by a trial court in a civil dispute.

“We request the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of the High Court of Allahabad to assign this matter to any other Judge of the high court as he may deem fit… We further direct that the judge concerned shall not be assigned any criminal determination, till he demits office. If at all at some point of time, he is to be made to sit as a single judge, he shall not be assigned any criminal determination,” the Bench had said.

The order had come after the Bench noticed that many such erroneous orders had been passed by the judge concerned over a period of time.

“The Chief Justice of the high court shall immediately withdraw the present criminal determination from the judge concerned. The Chief Justice shall make the judge concerned sit in a Division Bench with a seasoned senior judge of the high court,” the top court had said.

The Bench had directed the top court’s Registry to forward a copy of its order to the Chief Justice of Allahabad High Court “at the earliest.”

The order came on a petition filed by M/S Shikhar Chemicals challenging Justice Kumar’s order dismissing its plea seeking quashing of a summoning order in a case of commercial transaction. Justice Kumar had said asking the complainant to pursue civil remedy for recovering the amount was unreasonable being time intensive.

“The judge concerned has not only cut a sorry figure for himself but has made a mockery of justice. We are at our wits’ end to understand what is wrong with the Indian Judiciary at the level of the high court. At times we are left wondering whether such orders are passed on some extraneous considerations or it is sheer ignorance of law. Whatever it (may) be, passing of such absurd and erroneous orders is something unpardonable,” the Bench had said, terming the impugned order as “one of the worst and most erroneous orders”.

“It is an extremely sad day for one and all to read the observations contained in…the impugned order. It was expected of the high court to know the well-settled position of law that in cases of civil dispute a complainant cannot be permitted to resort to criminal proceedings as the same would amount to abuse of process of law. It was expected of the high court to understand the nature of the allegations levelled in the complaint. In substance, the high court has said in so many words that the criminal proceedings instituted by the complainant in a case of pure civil dispute is justified because it may take considerable time for the complainant to recover the balance amount by preferring a civil suit,” the top court noted.