SC recalls order against Allahabad HC judge after taking away criminal roster

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday recalled its unprecedented order to remove Justice Prashant Kumar of the Allahabad High Court from criminal roster till his retirement and to make him sit with a seasoned senior judge in division bench.

Acting on a letter received from Chief Justice of India B R Gavai, a bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan said its intention was not to cause embarrassment or cast aspersions on the concerned judge.

"However, when the matters cross a threshold and the dignity of the institution is in peril, it becomes the constitutional duty of the court to intervene even in the appellate jurisdiction," the bench said.

Justice Kumar faced the wrath of the Supreme Court after he allowed criminal proceedings in a case related to the non-payment of the balance amount for supply of goods, saying it would take years to recover the money in a civil suit.

In its August 4 order, the apex court said that passing of such absurd and erroneous orders by the HC judge is something unpardonable.

"The Chief Justice of High Court shall immediately withdraw the present criminal determination from the concerned judge. The Chief Justice shall make the concerned judge sit in a division bench with a seasoned senior judge of the High Court," the bench had said.

The court had further directed that the concerned judge would not be assigned any criminal determination till he demits office.

Deleting the twin directions on a request from the CJI, the bench pointed out 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. 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 bench said.

Maintaining the HC's order was "illegal and perverse", the court left it the Chief Justice of the HC to consider the matter.

"We fully acknowledge that the Chief Justice of the HC is the master of the roaster. The directions are absolutely not interfering with the administrative power of the Chief Justice of the High Court," the bench said.

The bench highlighted that when matters affect the rule of law this court will be compelled to take corrective steps.

In its August 4 order, the bench had pointed out it was constrained to issue the directions, keeping in mind that the instant order was not the only erroneous order of the concerned judge that it has looked into for the first time.

"Many such erroneous orders have been looked into by us over a period of time," the bench said.

The case arose out of the High Court's order of May 5, 2025, which rejected a plea for quashing criminal proceedings pending before the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Kanpur Nagar for a balance payment of goods supplied to accused M/s Shikhar Chemicals.

The court had noted the case of the complainant was plain and simple. He claimed to be an unpaid seller. He delivered goods in the form of thread to the petitioner worth Rs 52,34,385, out of which an amount of Rs 47,75,000 was paid. However, the balance amount was not paid. He tried to lodge an FIR but the police declined it due to civil nature of the dispute.

The Magistrate unfortunately remained unmindful of the fact despite the complainant’s own admission that the case was one of sale of goods and recovery of some balance amount, the bench said.

The court, however, said it was not surprised with the Magistrate exhibiting a complete ignorance of law but the most disturbing part of the case was the manner in which the High Court dealt with quashing petition.

In stinging observations, the bench had then said, "The judge concerned has not only cut a sorry figure for himself but has made a mockery of justice. We are at our wits’ end to understand what is wrong with the Indian Judiciary at the level of High Court. At times we are left wondering whether such orders are passed on some extraneous considerations or it is sheer ignorance of law."