SC recalls its order against Allahabad HC Judge| SCC Times
Supreme Court: In the present case, an undated letter from the Chief Justice of India was received, requesting the present Court to reconsider its directions issued in paras 25 and 26 of the order dated 4-8-2025 (‘the order’). The Division Judge Bench of J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, JJ., clarified that the intention was not to cause embarrassment or cast aspersions on the Judge concerned. The Court stated that “when matters cross the threshold and the dignity of the institution is imperilled, it becomes the constitutional responsibility of this Court to intervene, even when acting under its appellate jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution.” Since a request was made in writing by the Chief Justice of India, the Court deleted paras 25 and 26 respectively from the said order, whereby the Judge concerned was restrained from hearing criminal matters and left it to the Chief Justice of Allahabad High Court to look into the matter.
The directions contained in paras 25 and 26 of the said order, was that the Chief Justice should make the Judge concerned sit in a Division Bench with a seasoned senior judge of the High Court. It was also directed that the Judge concerned should not be assigned any criminal determination, till he demits office and if at all at some point of time, he was to be made to sit as a single judge, he should not be assigned any criminal determination.
The Court clarified that its intention was not to cause embarrassment or cast aspersions on the Judge concerned, and it would not even think of doing so. The Court stated that “when matters cross the threshold and the dignity of the institution is imperilled, it becomes the constitutional responsibility of this Court to intervene, even when acting under its appellate jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution.”
The Court stated that such directions were issued keeping in mind that the said order was not the only erroneous order of the Judge concerned, and many such erroneous orders have been looked into, over a period of time. The Court stated that “whenever we come across legally unimpeachable orders and orders that have ensured complete justice to the litigants, we have always taken the opportunity to record our appreciation for the Judges of the High Courts.” The High Courts were not separate islands that could be disassociated from this Institution and whatever was said in the said order was to ensure that the dignity and authority of the judiciary was maintained high in the minds of the people of this country.
The Court stated, “we were concerned about the appropriate direction to be issued in the interest of justice and with a view to protecting the honour and dignity of the institution.” The litigants in this country approach different courts of law to seek justice. For 90% of the litigants in this country, the High Court is the final court of justice and the litigants who come to court expect the justice delivery system to function in accordance with law and not to obtain absurd or irrational orders.
While acknowledging that the Chief Justice of High Court is the master of the roster, the Court stated that the directions given in the order, were absolutely not interfering with the administrative power of the Chief Justice of the High Court. The Court stated that when matters raise institutional concerns affecting the rule of law, this Court might be compelled to step in and take corrective steps.
Since a request was made in writing by the Chief Justice of India, the Court deleted paras 25 and 26 respectively from the order and left it to the Chief Justice of Allahabad High Court to look into the matter. The Court stated that “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 Court stated that the Judges at any level were expected to work efficiently, discharge their duties diligently and always strive hard to fulfil their constitutional oath.
[Shikhar Chemicals v. State of U.P., SLP( Crl.) No. 11445 of 2025, decided on 8-8-2025]
Read also: SC sets aside Allahabad HC’s ‘most erroneous’ order| SCC Times