Supreme Court Recalls Order Banning of a High Court Judge from Hearing Criminal Cases

The Supreme Court has recalled its earlier decision banning of a High Court judge from hearing criminal cases, after a request from Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai. The apex court removed adverse remarks against Justice Prashant Kumar from its previous order and stated, “We close this matter.”

This reversal came just days after the August 4 order in which Justice Kumar was banned as a High Court judge from hearing criminal cases until retirement. That decision, passed by a bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan, stemmed from Justice Kumar’s move to uphold criminal summons in a case of purely civil nature.

CJI’s Intervention Leads to Reconsideration

The turning point occurred when CJI Gavai sent an undated letter urging Justice Pardiwala to reconsider the earlier order. The bench openly acknowledged this in court, stating, “We have received an undated letter from the CJI requesting us to reconsider the directions passed in our earlier order.” Consequently, The Supreme Court overturned the challenged judgment and sent the case back to the Allahabad High Court for a new hearing.

The bench clarified that the Supreme Court does not intend to interfere in the administrative authority of the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court, affirming that the Chief Justice is the master of the roster. This position effectively transfers the responsibility for any future action to Allahabad High Court Chief Justice Arun Bhansali.

Earlier, the Justice Pardiwala bench had termed Justice Kumar’s order “one of the worst and most erroneous” it had seen. However, the bench stressed that it never intended to cause embarrassment or cast aspersions on the judge personally. The earlier decision banning a High Court judge was aimed, it said, at protecting the dignity of the judiciary.

Balancing Judicial Dignity and Independence

In its revised stance, the Supreme Court emphasized that High Courts are integral parts of the larger judicial institution, not isolated entities. The judges remarked that their earlier order was intended solely to uphold the dignity of the judiciary. It is not just a matter of error or mistake. We were concerned about the appropriate directions to protect the honour of the institution.”

The court has now removed the paragraphs from its August 4 ruling that ordered Justice Kumar to avoid criminal cases and to sit only on a division bench with a senior colleague. By reversing the banning of a High Court judge, the Supreme Court also avoided a looming confrontation within the higher judiciary. Reports suggested that 13 judges of the Allahabad High Court had written to their Chief Justice, expressing their intent to oppose the Supreme Court’s earlier order.

The justices added a cautionary note for the future, stating, “We hope 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, that would be the end of the entire justice delivery system. Judges are expected to work efficiently and discharge their duties diligently.”

This case originated from a dispute between Lalita Textiles and M/S Shikhar Chemicals over payment for supplied goods. Lalita Textiles alleged that while goods worth Rs- 52.34 lakh were supplied, only Rs- 47.75 lakh had been paid. A magisterial court issued a criminal summons based on the complaint. Justice Kumar, however, upheld the summons despite the dispute being of civil nature.

When the matter reached the Supreme Court, the bench initially passed scathing remarks, calling Justice Kumar’s ruling “a mockery of justice.” At that stage, the banning of a High Court judge appeared absolute. However, with the latest decision, the Supreme Court has taken a conciliatory step, restoring judicial balance while keeping a close watch on the quality of judgments from lower benches.