After CJI's Request, Supreme Court Recalls Direction To Remove Allahabad HC Judge From Criminal Jurisdiction

In an unusual turn of events, the Supreme Court on Friday (August 8) recalled the unprecedented order passed by it on August 4 which had observed that a Judge of the Allahabad High Court should be removed from criminal jurisdiction until his retirement and that he should be made to sit with a seasoned senior judge.

A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan had passed the unusual order while taking exception to an order passed by Justice Prashant Kumar of the High Court by which a criminal complaint was refused to be quashed on the ground that a civil remedy for recovery of money was not effective.

However, after the order came under criticism, the Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, later wrote to Justice Pardiwala's bench requesting the reconsideration of the strictures against the High Court Judge. Following that, the disposed of matter was relisted today for fresh directions. In a related development, thirteen Judges of the High Court also wrote to the Allahabad High Court Chief Justice urging him to not implement the directions of the Supreme Court.

Today, the bench comprising Justice Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan stated that they have received a letter from the Chief Justice of India requesting the reconsideration of the directions to remove the High Court Judge from the criminal roster and to make him sit with a division bench.

"We have received an undated letter from the hon'ble Chief Justice of India requesting the reconsideration of the observations in paras...In such circumstances, we directed the Registry to re-notify the main matter for considering the request made by the Chief Justice of India," Justice Pardiwala explained the reasons for re-listing.

Pronouncing the fresh order, Justice Pardiwala said that there was no intention to cause any embarrassment to the Judge and that the only intention was to correct a manifestly perverse order.

"At the outset, we must clarify that our intention was not to cause embarrassment or cast aspersions on the concerned Judge. We would not even think of doing so. However, when the matters cross a 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," Justice Pardiwala stated while pronouncing the order.

The bench further stated that it was constrained to pass the strictures in view of the manifest error in the impugned order. When High Courts pass orders which ensure complete justice, the Supreme Court has always recorded appreciation for the High Court Judges, the bench stated.

"The High Courts are not separate islands that can be disassociated from this institution. We reiterate, whatever we said in our 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 by the judge concerned in appreciating the legal points or facts. We were concerned about the appropriate direction to be issued in the interest of justice and to protect the honour and dignity of the institution,"Justice Pardiwala observed in the order.

"For 90% of the litigants in the country, the High Court is the final Court of Justice. Only the remaining 10% can afford to approach the Supreme Court. The litigants who come to the Court expect the justice delivery system to function in accordance with law and not to obtain absurd or irrational orders.

"In any view of the matter, since a request in writing has been received from Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India and in due deference to the same, we hereby delete para 25 and 26 from our order dated 4th August 2025. The order be corrected accordingly. While we are deleting the paragraphs, we leave it to the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court to now look into the matter. We fully acknowledge that the Chief Justice of a High Court is the master of the roster. The 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," Justice Pardiwala pronounced.

However, the bench maintained that the impugned order was "perverse" and "illegal". The bench also referred to the recent order passed by a bench of former CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Khanna in Rikhab Irani which raised concerns about the UP police registering FIRs over civil wrongs.

"We hope that in future, we may not have to come across such perverse and unjust order from any High Court. The endevour of the High Court should always be to uphold the rule of law and to 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 system of the Country. The Judges at any level are expected to work efficiently, discharge their duties diligently and always try and endeavour to fulfil their constituional oath," the bench stated in the conclusion.

Background