In a rare and dramatic reversal, the Supreme Court of India has recalled its August 4 order that restrained Justice Prashant Kumar of the Allahabad High Court from hearing criminal cases until his retirement. The decision to withdraw the earlier directions came after Chief Justice of India BR Gavai made a written request to the Bench, led by Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan, urging reconsideration of the unprecedented ruling. The August 4 order had stirred significant debate in judicial circles, as it not only barred Justice Kumar from taking up criminal matters but also directed that he be made to sit with a senior judge. On Friday, Justice Pardiwala, while pronouncing the recall order, stated that paragraphs 25 and 26 of the previous order would be deleted, leaving the matter to the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court, who is the master of the roster. The Bench acknowledged that it fully respected the authority of the High Court Chief Justice to allocate judicial work.
Clarifying their stance, the judges said their earlier order was never intended to cause embarrassment or cast aspersions on Justice Kumar, but was driven by the need to safeguard the dignity and authority of the judiciary. They maintained that when the rule of law is at stake, the Supreme Court has the constitutional responsibility to intervene, even under its appellate jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution. The August 4 order had stemmed from repeated erroneous rulings by Justice Kumar, particularly in a case where he upheld criminal summons issued by a trial court in a purely civil dispute. The Supreme Court had earlier observed that such judicial conduct made a mockery of justice, questioning whether these orders were influenced by extraneous considerations or sheer ignorance of law.
The reversal followed not just the CJI’s intervention but also a strong reaction from within the Allahabad High Court itself. A group of 13 judges wrote to Chief Justice Arun Bhansali, calling for a Full Court meeting and expressing deep anguish over the tone and tenor of the August 4 ruling. The Full Court of the Allahabad High Court subsequently resolved that the Supreme Court’s directions in paragraphs 24 to 26 of that order would not be complied with, asserting that the top court does not have administrative superintendence over High Courts. This rare judicial pushback underscored the sensitivity of the matter, balancing the independence of High Courts with the supervisory role of the Supreme Court.
Even as the controversial directions stand withdrawn, the Supreme Court reiterated its commitment to maintaining the honor of the judiciary in the public eye. It reminded that while High Courts are autonomous, they are not isolated from the larger judicial framework of the country. The development marks a significant moment in the ongoing dialogue over judicial accountability, independence, and the delicate interplay between the apex court and the High Courts in India.