Supreme Court Recalls Unprecedented Order on HC Judge After CJI's Intervention

New Delhi – In a remarkable and rare proceeding, the Supreme Court of India has recalled its own unprecedented directions against a sitting judge of the Allahabad High Court. The move came after a direct, albeit deferential, request from the Chief Justice of India, highlighting the delicate balance of power, judicial propriety, and institutional integrity within the country's judiciary.

The bench, comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan, reversed its earlier instructions from August 4, which had called for the High Court judge, Justice Prashant Kumar, to be removed from handling criminal cases until his retirement. While retracting the specific directives, the Supreme Court firmly maintained its critique of the High Court's order as "perverse" and "illegal," leaving the matter in the hands of the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court.

The Genesis of the Controversy: A Civil Dispute in Criminal Garb

The saga began with an appeal before the Supreme Court in M/S. SHIKHAR CHEMICALS v THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANR . The case involved a challenge to an order by Justice Prashant Kumar of the Allahabad High Court, who had refused to quash a criminal complaint arising from a commercial transaction. A supplier, Lalita Textiles, had filed a criminal complaint against Shikhar Chemicals over an outstanding payment of ₹7,23,711.

Justice Kumar's reasoning for allowing the criminal proceedings to continue drew sharp condemnation from the Supreme Court. He had argued that relegating the complainant, a "very small business firm," to a civil court would be a "travesty of justice" due to the lengthy nature and additional costs of civil litigation. He noted, "it would seem like good money chasing bad money."

This rationale was met with astonishment by the Supreme Court. In their initial August 4 order, Justice Pardiwala and Justice Mahadevan found the High Court judge's understanding of the law to be "shocking." They observed that allowing criminal proceedings to be used as a tool for money recovery fundamentally misinterprets the purpose of criminal law.

The bench had initially stated, "This is the understanding of a high court judge that, even ultimately, rightly or wrongly, if the accused is convicted, the trial court will award him the balance amount." Finding the order indefensible, they set it aside and remanded the matter for a fresh hearing by a different judge.

The Unprecedented Strictures and the Subsequent Recourse

The Supreme Court's initial order did not stop at quashing the decision. In paragraphs 25 and 26, the bench issued extraordinary directives:

"We further request the Hon'ble Chief Justice to immediately withdraw the present determination of the concerned judge. The concerned judge should be made to sit in a division bench with a seasoned senior of the High Court. In any view of the matter, the concerned judge should not be assigned any criminal determination till he demits office."

Such a direct intervention in the roster management of a High Court, effectively sidelining a judge from a specific jurisdiction for the remainder of their career, is virtually unheard of and sparked significant debate within legal circles. The gravity of the situation was amplified when thirteen judges of the Allahabad High Court reportedly wrote to their own Chief Justice, urging him not to implement the Supreme Court's directions.

The matter took a decisive turn with the intervention of the Chief Justice of India, B.R. Gavai. He sent an "undated letter" to Justice Pardiwala's bench, requesting a reconsideration of the strictures against Justice Kumar.

The Recall: Deference to the CJI, but a Stern Reiteration

Responding to the CJI's request, the bench re-listed the disposed-of matter. In a fresh hearing, Justice Pardiwala carefully explained the court's position. He clarified that the bench's intent was never to "cause embarrassment or cast aspersions on the concerned Judge," but to uphold the dignity of the judiciary when matters "cross a threshold."

"We reiterate, whatever we said in our order was to ensure that the dignity and the authority of the judiciary as a whole is maintained high in the minds of the people of this country," Justice Pardiwala stated, emphasizing the Supreme Court's constitutional responsibility to intervene under Article 136 when institutional integrity is imperiled.

While agreeing to withdraw the specific directions, the bench did not mince words about the quality of the High Court's order. It doubled down on its assessment, calling it "perverse" and "unjust." The bench underscored a growing concern about the misuse of the criminal justice system for civil recoveries, referencing a recent order in the Rikhab Irani case that highlighted the issue of the U.P. Police registering FIRs over civil wrongs.

In a carefully worded fresh order, the bench stated:

"In any view of the matter, since a request in writing has been received from Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India and in due deference to the same, we hereby delete para 25 and 26 from our order dated 4th August 2025... While we are deleting the paragraphs, we leave it to the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court to now look into the matter. We fully acknowledge that the Chief Justice of a High Court is the master of the roster."

This act of deference was coupled with a clear assertion of the Supreme Court's corrective authority, noting that "When matters raise institutional concerns affecting the rule of law, this court may be compelled to step in and take corrective steps."

The bench concluded with a somber hope that it would not encounter such orders in the future, reminding judges at all levels of their duty to uphold the rule of law and fulfill their constitutional oath.

Legal and Institutional Implications

This episode serves as a powerful case study in judicial federalism and the internal checks and balances within the Indian judiciary.

1. Judicial Oversight vs. High Court Autonomy: The initial order tested the boundaries of the Supreme Court's supervisory power over High Courts. While the Supreme Court is the apex appellate body, the administrative management of a High Court, including its roster, is the exclusive domain of its Chief Justice. The recall of the order reaffirms the "master of the roster" doctrine at the High Court level, while still sending an unmistakable message about judicial standards.

2. The Role of the Chief Justice of India: CJI Gavai's intervention showcases the unique, often informal, role of the CJI as the head of the judicial family. By making a request rather than issuing a directive, the CJI facilitated a course correction that preserved the authority of the Supreme Court bench while mitigating a potential institutional crisis.

3. Criminal Law as a Recovery Tool: At its core, the case is a stark reminder of the persistent and problematic trend of weaponizing criminal law for civil disputes. The Supreme Court’s unwavering stance on this issue, even while recalling its own strictures, reinforces the principle that criminal proceedings should not be a shortcut for debt collection.

In Other Developments: SCLSC Pay Parity Plea

In a separate matter, the Supreme Court addressed a petition from permanent employees of the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee (SCLSC) seeking pay parity with employees of the Supreme Court Registry. The petitioners argued they were placed on a lower pay scale compared to their counterparts on deputation, contractual, or outsourced roles.

A bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi disposed of the petition, HARISH BHARDWAJ & ORS v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS , by directing the petitioners to first approach the competent authority. The Court requested Justice Vikram Nath, in his capacity as the Chairman of the SCLSC, to consider the employees' representation and make an appropriate decision. The Secretary of the SCLSC was directed to submit the proposal to the Chairman within two weeks, ensuring the grievance is addressed through the proper internal channels before judicial intervention.