SC withdraws order stripping Allahabad HC judge of criminal jurisdiction

THe sublime margaret court on fri rolling support its extraordinary August 4 directive that had barred an Allahabad high court judge from hearing any criminal cases for the remainder of his tenure and ordered him to sit with a senior colleague to “learn the nuances of law.”A bench of justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan said it was acting on a letter from Chief Justice of India (CJI) Bhushan R Gavai requesting reconsideration of the contentious directions. As reported first by HT on Thursday, the CJI’s intervention followed concerns within judicial circles that the top court may have overreached by issuing what effectively amounted to an administrative directive to a high court.“We have received an undated letter from the CJI, requesting us to reconsider the directions issued by us in paragraphs 25 and 26 of the August 4 order…In such circumstances, we directed the registry to re-notify the matter… Since a request has been made by the CJI, we delete paragraphs 25 and 26,” the bench said in its fresh order.In these two paragraphs, the bench had issued the unprecedented order of barring Justice Prashant Kumar of the Allahabad High Court from handling any criminal matters for the rest of his judicial career, citing an “absurd” and “one of the worst” orders it had ever encountered. The bench had also instructed the chief justice of the high court that he be paired with a “seasoned senior judge” in a division bench, in a move seen as an institutional reprimand aimed at remedial learning.Also Read: Lakhimpur case: SC pulls up UP police for delaying action on witness threat complaintOn Friday, the bench clarified that it never intended to “cause embarrassment or cast aspersion” on the Allahabad High Court judge. “We would never think of doing so. However, when an order is legally unjust and manifestly wrong, it becomes the constitutional duty of this court to intervene… to ensure the dignity and credibility of the judiciary is held high in the minds of the people,” the bench said.At the same time, the bench underscored its readiness to step in when judicial conduct threatens the rule of law: “When matters affect institutional integrity and rule of law, this court will have to step in… We hope that in future we do not come across such perverse and unjustified orders from any high court. If the rule of law and institutional credibility is not maintained, that would be the end of the rule of law. Judges at all levels must uphold the rule of law.”The bench added that the previous order was not just a matter of error or mistake in appreciation of the legal points. “We were more concerned about appropriate directions with a view to protect the honour and dignity of this institution…When matters affect institutional integrity and rule of law, this court will have to step in to uphold the rule of law,” it emphasised.The top court further stressed that its August 4 remarks were aimed at reinforcing public confidence in the judiciary. “For 90% of litigants, high courts remain the final court…They expect the courts to operate in accordance with law and not issue absurd and unreasonable orders,” it said, adding that “litigants approach courts for various reliefs” and that judicial accountability was inseparable from judicial independence.The bench also addressed the unease in legal circles over possible encroachment on a high court’s exclusive roster-making powers. “We clarify that our directions were not to interfere with the administrative authority of the chief justice of the high court. We are mindful that the high court chief justice is the master of the roster,” said the bench, leaving it to the chief justice to take “appropriate steps.”The registry was then been directed to forward a copy of the revised order to the chief justice of the Allahabad high court “at the earliest.”The August 4 order, unusually severe in tone and scope, had come in an appeal over a ₹7.23 lakh payment dispute, which the apex court found to be “purely civil in nature.” Justice Kumar had allowed criminal proceedings to continue, reasoning that the complainant, a small businessman, could not afford a lengthy civil trial. The Supreme Court called this “absurd” and “one of the worst” orders it had encountered, concluding that the judge “made a mockery of justice.”The original ruling went further, directing the Allahabad High Court chief justice to ensure Justice Kumar “is never assigned any criminal jurisdiction again” until his retirement in May 2029 and to pair him with a seasoned judge in a division bench.Amid concerns that this order had crossed into the administrative domain of the high court, CJI Gavai had a meeting with Justice Pardiwala on Wednesday, urging the latter to review the directions so as to strike a balance between judicial discipline and constitutional propriety. Following the CJI’s intervention and a letter by him, the matter was relisted before the Justice Pardiwala’s bench on Friday.Meanwhile, on Thursday at least 13 judges of the Allahabad High Court wrote to chief justice Arun Bhansali, urging him to convene a full court meeting to consider disregarding directions issued by the Supreme Court in its August 4 order, which withdrew the criminal roster from Justice Kumar until his retirement.In his letter Justice Arindam Sinha, writing in his personal capacity, invoked Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952, to circulate the proposal for signatures. The letter has garnered support and endorsement from at least 12 other judges. The letter asserted that the Supreme Court does not have administrative superintendence over the high court.