Supreme Court withdraws bar on HC Judge after uproar, says no intent to disparage

In a rare and dramatic reversal, the Supreme Court on August 8 recalled its controversial August 4 order barring Allahabad High Court’s Justice Prashant Kumar from hearing criminal cases, following a wave of criticism from within the judiciary and the legal community.

The directive, issued by a bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan, had instructed that Justice Kumar be removed from criminal benches until his retirement and only be allowed to sit with a senior judge.

The order came after the bench flagged his refusal to quash a criminal complaint, despite the existence of a civil remedy—an interpretation the apex court had deemed flawed.

However, the unprecedented move triggered a strong response. Thirteen judges of the Allahabad High Court reportedly wrote to their Chief Justice urging him not to enforce the Supreme Court's instructions.

Adding weight to the growing concern, Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud (erroneously referred to as B R Gavai in earlier reporting) personally intervened, writing to Justice Pardiwala’s bench requesting a reconsideration of the sweeping curbs imposed on the High Court judge.

Responding to the CJI’s appeal, the Supreme Court ordered the matter to be re-listed and, in its new ruling, struck down the contentious portions of its earlier order.

“We must clarify that our intention was not to cause embarrassment or cast aspersions on the concerned Judge. We would not even think of doing so,” Justice Pardiwala stated during the hearing.

“However, when the dignity of the institution is imperiled, it becomes the constitutional responsibility of this Court to intervene, even under its appellate jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution.”

The court deleted paragraphs 25 and 26 from its August 4 order—those that had effectively stripped the High Court judge of his criminal case roster—and restored full discretion to the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court regarding case allocation.

Yet, while walking back the punitive directive, the bench stood firm on its criticism of the original judgment passed by Justice Kumar. Calling it “perverse” and “illegal,” the court underscored the potential damage such rulings inflict on public trust in the judiciary.

“Such orders shake the confidence of the public in the administration of criminal justice. They cannot be countenanced,” the bench remarked.

The episode marks a delicate balancing act for the Supreme Court — attempting to uphold judicial accountability without overstepping its bounds into the domain of High Court administration. It also underscores the growing sensitivity within the judicial system about public perception and intra-institutional fairness.