The Supreme Court recalled its earlier directive restraining an Allahabad High Court judge from adjudicating criminal matters, following a communication from Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai urging reconsideration. The Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan set aside its August 4 order, which had barred Justice Prashant Kumar from hearing criminal cases until retirement, and expunged its earlier observations against him.
The dispute originated from a complaint by Lalita Textiles against M/s Shikhar Chemicals, alleging non-payment of the remaining amount in a commercial transaction. The complainant claimed to have supplied thread worth ₹52.34 lakh, of which ₹47.75 lakh was paid, with the balance outstanding. The magisterial court issued summons in the criminal complaint, which the High Court declined to quash. Justice Kumar’s decision to uphold the summons became the subject of sharp criticism in the Supreme Court’s earlier order, which had described it as legally untenable.
The August 4 decision arose from Justice Kumar’s order upholding criminal summons in what was essentially a civil dispute. While revoking that directive, the Bench clarified that it never intended to undermine or cause embarrassment to the judge, emphasising that its earlier remarks were aimed at safeguarding the institution’s dignity. Acknowledging that the Chief Justice of the High Court is the master of the roster, the Supreme Court refrained from interfering in administrative prerogatives and remanded the matter for fresh consideration by Chief Justice Arun Bhansali of the Allahabad High Court.
The court also removed portions of its previous ruling which had directed Justice Kumar to sit alongside a senior colleague. “We hope not to encounter such perverse orders in future. If the rule of law is not upheld within the court itself, the justice delivery system stands imperilled. Judges must discharge their duties diligently and efficiently", the Bench observed while closing the matter.
This development follows concerns within the higher judiciary, with reports indicating that multiple high court judges had expressed dissent over the August 4 directive.
Picture Source :
