SC recalls order barring Allahabad HC judge from hearing criminal cases

Having passed an unprecedented order restraining Justice Prashant Kumar of the Allahabad High Court from hearing criminal cases “till he demits office” and directing that he should be made to sit with a seasoned senior judge, the Supreme Court on Friday recalled its August 4 controversial order.

A Bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan reheard the matter and recalled the controversial directions following an “undated letter” received from Chief Justice of India BR Gavai requesting it to reconsider the said directions and strong strictures against Justice Kumar.

Taking exception to the “tone and tenor of the August 4 SC order, a group of 13 judges of the Allahabad High Court had written to Chief Justice Arun Bhansali demanding a full court meeting. The Supreme Court did not have administrative superintendence over high courts, they had pointed out.

“Since a request has been made in writing by the CJI, and in due deference to the same, we hereby delete paras 25 and 26, respectively, from our order dated August 4, 2025… we leave it to the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court to look into the matter,” Justice Pardiwala said, pronouncing the order.

At the outset, the Bench clarified that “our intention was not to cause embarrassment or cast aspersions on the judge concerned. We would not even think of doing so. However, when matters cross the threshold and the dignity of the institution is imperiled, it becomes the constitutional responsibility of this court to intervene, even when acting under its appellate jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution.”

“We fully acknowledge that the Chief Justice of a high court is the master of the roster… our directions are absolutely not interfering with the administrative power of the Chief Justice of the high court. When matters raise institutional concerns affecting the rule of law, this court may be compelled to step in and take corrective steps,” the Bench said.

Maintaining that high courts were not separate islands that could be disassociated from the Supreme Court, the Bench reiterated that “whatever we said in our (August 4, 2025) order was to ensure that the dignity and the authority of the judiciary as a whole is maintained high in the minds of the people of this country. It is not just a matter of error or mistake… To appreciate legal points we were concerned about the appropriate directions to be issued in the interest of justice and with a view to protecting the honour and dignity of this institution,” Justice Pardiwala said.

“We hope that in future, we may not have to come across such perverse and unjust orders from any high court. The endeavour of the high courts should always be to uphold the rule of law and maintain institutional credibility. If the rule of law is not maintained or protected within the court itself, then that would be the end of the entire justice delivery system in the country,” the Bench cautioned.

Taking note of repeated “erroneous orders” passed by Justice Kumar of the Allahabad High Court, the Supreme Court had on August 4 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 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 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 noted in its August 4 order.