The Supreme Court’s bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan, has recalled and deleted its earlier directions against a sitting judge of the Allahabad High Court, Justice Prashant Kumar. The Court took this step following a request from the Chief Justice of India (CJI). In its prior order dated August 4, 2025, the bench had made strong adverse remarks, suggesting Justice Kumar be kept off criminal rosters for encouraging criminal proceedings in a civil matter. While deleting the specific paragraphs containing these remarks, the Court reiterated its duty to take corrective steps when the rule of law is affected and left it to the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court to look into the matter.
Background of the Case
The matter was brought back before the Supreme Court for reconsideration after an earlier order passed on August 4, 2025. In that order, while setting aside a judgment by Justice Prashant Kumar of the Allahabad High Court and remanding the case for a fresh hearing, the Supreme Court had included strong observations in paragraphs 25 and 26. The Court had expressed its disapproval of the High Court judge’s handling of the case, which it deemed a civil dispute being given a criminal colour. The remarks were severe, suggesting that the judge should not be assigned criminal cases until he demits office.
Following this order, the Supreme Court received a letter from the Chief Justice of India, requesting a reconsideration of the directions passed against the sitting High Court judge. Consequently, the Supreme Court registry was directed to re-notify the matter for a hearing.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The bench, led by Justice JB Pardiwala, began the hearing by clarifying the intent behind its previous order. “At the outset, we must clarify that our intention was not to cause embarrassment or cast aspersions on the concerned judge,” the Court stated.
The Court explained that the judiciary is a single institution and the Supreme Court has a duty to uphold its dignity. “The High Courts are not separate islands that can be disassociated from the institution. Whatever we said in our order was to ensure that the dignity of the judiciary is held high,” the bench observed. It further elaborated that its concern was not merely about a legal error but about ensuring justice and protecting the institution’s honour. “It is not just a matter of error or mistake to appreciate the legal points, we were concerned about the appropriate directions in a view to protect the honour of the institution,” the Court added.
Underscoring the critical role of the High Courts, the bench noted, “For 90% the HC is the final court of justice. The litigants would come to expect the justice delivery system to function in accordance with law and not to obtain absurd and irrational orders.”
In light of the CJI’s request, the Court decided to modify its earlier order. “Since a request has been made by the CJI we hereby delete para 25 and 26 from our 4th August order,” the Court directed.
However, the bench made it clear that deleting the remarks did not absolve the High Court of its administrative oversight. It emphasized the authority of the High Court’s Chief Justice as the ‘master of the roster’. “While we delete it, we leave it to the Chief Justice of the High Court to now look into the matter. We fully acknowledge that the Chief Justice of the 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,” the Court stated.
The Supreme Court asserted its constitutional obligation to intervene when necessary. “When matters affect the rule of law this court will be compelled to take corrective steps,” the bench affirmed. It referred to a previous order from a bench headed by CJI D.Y. Chandrachud (erroneously referred to as CJI Khanna in the proceedings), where costs were imposed for erroneous judicial orders, to highlight the importance of judicial accountability.
Concluding its observations with a word of caution, the Court remarked, “We hope in the future we may not have to come across such perverse orders of the High Court. If the rule of law is not maintained in the court itself then that would be the end of the entire justice delivery system. Judges are expected to work efficiently, discharge their duties diligently.”
During the proceedings, a counsel attempted to raise an issue about another advocate’s conduct in the matter, alleging they had misled the court. The bench directed the counsel to raise this issue before the appropriate forum, stating, “Approach the CJ of the High Court.”
Decision of the Court
The Supreme Court ordered the deletion of paragraphs 25 and 26 from its order dated August 4, 2025. The Court closed the matter, leaving it to the discretion of the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court to take any further necessary action. A copy of the order was directed to be forwarded to the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court for information and necessary action.
