13 Allahabad High Court Judges Ask CJ To Defy Supreme Court Order, Call For Full Court Meeting
Thank you for reading this post, don’t forget to subscribe!
13 judges of the Allahabad High Court have urged Chief Justice Arun Bhansali to reject the Supreme Court’s order against Justice Prashant Kumar. They demand a Full Court meeting, calling the SC’s directions overreaching and unjust.
In a major development, at least 14 judges of the Allahabad High Court have written a letter to Chief Justice Arun Bhansali requesting a Full Court meeting in response to a recent controversial order passed by the Supreme Court against one of their fellow judges — Justice Prashant Kumar.
The trigger for this move was a strongly worded order passed on August 4, 2025by a Supreme Court Bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan.
In this order, the apex court made sharp criticisms of Justice Kumar’s understanding of criminal law, especially in relation to a decision where he held that criminal prosecution could be used as an alternative means to recover money in civil disputes.
The Supreme Court Bench directed the Chief Justice of Allahabad High Court to remove Justice Prashant Kumar from the criminal roster till his retirement and also instructed that he be made to sit with a senior and experienced judge of the High Court in a Division Bench.
The order has caused significant unrest among many of Justice Kumar’s colleagues in the High Court. In protest, Justice Arindam Sinha of the Allahabad High Court wrote a detailed letter to the Chief Justice, which was later signed by 12 other judges.
In his letter, Justice Sinha wrote:
“Subject order dated 4th August, 2025 was made without direction for issuance of notice and contains scathing findings against the learned Judge.”
He further suggested that the Full Court of the High Court should pass a resolution refusing to comply with the Supreme Court’s directions regarding Justice Kumar’s criminal case roster, stating that the Supreme Court
“does not have administrative superintendence over High Courts.”
Justice Sinha went on to express the collective judicial discomfort regarding the tone of the apex court’s order, saying the Full Court should record its anguish in “respect of the tone and tenor of said order”.
The strong reaction has also made its way to the Supreme Court itself. According to multiple media reports, some Supreme Court judges have also expressed concerns about the far-reaching nature of the directions issued by the Bench led by Justice Pardiwala.
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court has re-listed the case for hearing again on Fridayindicating that further developments may soon unfold.
How It All Began: The Case Involving Shikhar Chemicals
The legal saga started with a petition by M/S Shikhar Chemicalswho had moved the Allahabad High Court seeking to quash criminal proceedings initiated against them. The case stemmed from a commercial dispute.
The respondent had supplied thread worth Rs 52,34,385 to Shikhar Chemicals, of which Rs 47,75,000 was allegedly paid. The remaining amount was claimed to be unpaid, and thus a criminal complaint was filed before the Magistrate.
Shikhar Chemicals challenged the complaint in the High Court, arguing that this was a purely civil matter that had been wrongly given a criminal angle.
However, on May 5, 2025Justice Prashant Kumar of the Allahabad High Court dismissed the plea and made the following controversial observation:
“Asking the complainant to pursue civil remedy would be very unreasonable as civil suits take a long time, and therefore the complainant may be permitted to institute criminal proceedings for recovery.”
This comment — suggesting that slow civil justice justifies criminal prosecution for recovery — did not sit well with the apex court.
Supreme Court’s Reaction
On August 4, 2025the Supreme Court set aside Justice Kumar’s orderstating that his reasoning was legally incorrect. The court said that criminal law cannot be used as a substitute for civil recovery.
The SC Bench said:
“We are shocked by the findings recorded in paragraph 12 of the impugned order. The judge has gone to the extent of stating that asking the complainant to pursue civil remedy would be very unreasonable as civil suits take a long time, and therefore the complainant may be permitted to institute criminal proceedings for recovery.”
Further, the Supreme Court remanded the matter to be heard afresh by a different judge of the High Court, which in itself is a rare and strong action by the top court.
Immediate Consequences on the Roster
Following the Supreme Court’s direction, the Allahabad High Court on the same day — August 4 — temporarily changed Justice Kumar’s roster.
As per the new arrangement:
- On August 7 and 8Justice Kumar is scheduled to sit with Justice MC Tripathi to hear land acquisition cases, development authority writs, and environmental matters.
- Meanwhile, Justice Dinesh Pathak has taken over Justice Kumar’s earlier assigned criminal matters.
This shows the High Court’s partial compliance with the direction, even as discussions among its judges about the broader implications of the Supreme Court’s order continue.
A Clash of Judicial Authority?
The heart of the current issue seems to be a question of judicial independence and administrative authority.
The Supreme Court, in this instance, passed a direction affecting the internal functioning of the High Court — something that many believe may go beyond its administrative jurisdiction, as each High Court is governed internally by its Full Court and Chief Justice under the Constitution.
The Allahabad High Court judges’ protest letter is perhaps a rare moment of open dissent from within the judiciary itself, highlighting the need for careful balance between judicial review, collegial respect, and institutional boundaries.
The upcoming Friday hearing in the Supreme Court is now crucial — not just for Justice Kumar but for the larger question of how much control the apex court can or should exercise over High Court judges beyond appellate review.
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Justice Prashant Kumar