The Supreme Court on Friday (8 August 2025) recalled its unprecedented 4 August 2025 order that had barred an Allahabad High Court judge from hearing criminal cases until his retirement. The recall came after criticism from within the judiciary, including a letter signed by 13 high court judges urging the Allahabad High Court Chief Justice to defy the directive.
The August 4 order, passed by a bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, had taken strong exception to an order by Justice Prashant Kumar refusing to quash a criminal complaint in what the apex court deemed a purely civil dispute. Calling Justice Kumar’s ruling one of the “worst and most erroneous” they had seen, the bench had directed the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court to remove him from all criminal cases and make him sit with a senior judge.
High Court judge Justice Arindam Sinha, in a letter to Chief Justice Arun Bhansali signed by 12 other judges, wrote that the August 4 order was “made without direction for issuance of notice and contains scathing remarks on apparently baseless findings against the learned judge.” The letter sought a full court meeting to resolve that the high court “will not comply with the August 4 order since the Supreme Court does not have administration superintendence over High Courts” and to record “anguish over the tone and tenor of the order.”
Case Background
The dispute arose from a complaint by Lalita Textiles alleging that M/S Shikhar Chemicals had failed to pay ₹4.59 lakh from a ₹52.34 lakh thread supply. After a magisterial court issued summons, the company moved the high court, arguing the matter was civil in nature. Justice Kumar refused to quash the summons, writing:
“O.P. no.2 appears to be a very small business firm and for him, the aforesaid amount along with interest is a huge amount. In case, subject to filing civil suit, O.P. no.2 will not be in position to pursue the civil litigation. In case, O.P. no.2 files a civil suit firstly, it will take years for it to see any ray of hope and secondly, he will have to put more money to pursue the litigation. To be more precise it would seem like good money chasing bad money. If this Court allows the matter to be referred to civil court on account of civil dispute between the parties, it would amount to travesty of justice and O.P. no.2 would suffer irreparable loss and he might even not be in a position to emerge from the financial constraints to pursue the matter.”
The Supreme Court described these findings as “shocking.” The August 4 order stated, “The judge has gone to the extent of saying that asking the complainant to pursue civil remedy for the purpose of recovery of balance amount would be very unreasonable, as a civil suit may take a long time before it is decided. Therefore, complainant should be permitted to institute a criminal proceedings before the purpose of recovery of balance amount. 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.
The findings recorded in para. 12 are shocking. We are left with no other option than to set aside the order even without issuing notice to the Respondents. In the result, we partly allow the petition and set aside the impugned order passed by the High Court. We remand the matter to the High Court for fresh consideration of the criminal miscellaneous application. We request the Hon’ble Chief Justice of the High Court to assign this matter to any other judge of the High Court.”
The bench had further ordered:
“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. If at all, he is to be to sit as a single judge, he shall not be assigned any criminal determination.”
CJI’s Intervention and Recall
Following backlash, Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai wrote to Justice Pardiwala’s bench requesting reconsideration. When the matter was re-listed, Justice Pardiwala told the court, “We have received an undated letter from the hon’ble Chief Justice of India requesting the reconsideration of the observations in paras… In such circumstances, we directed the Registry to re-notify the main matter for considering the request made by the Chief Justice of India.”
Pronouncing the fresh order, Justice Pardiwala said, “At the outset, 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. However, when the matters cross a threshold and the dignity of the institution is imperilled, it becomes the constitutional responsibility of this Court to intervene even when acting under its appellate jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution.”
The bench deleted paragraphs 25 and 26 of the August 4 order, leaving the matter to the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court, while emphasising, “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. It is not just a matter of error or mistake by the judge concerned in appreciating the legal points or facts. We were concerned about the appropriate direction to be issued in the interest of justice and to protect the honour and dignity of the institution.”
“For 90% of the litigants in the country, the High Court is the final Court of Justice. Only the remaining 10% can afford to approach the Supreme Court… 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. The order be corrected accordingly. 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.”
The bench maintained that the impugned high court order was “perverse” and “illegal,” adding, “We hope that in future, we may not have to come across such perverse and unjust order from any High Court. The endeavour of the High Court should always be to uphold the rule of law and to maintain institutional credibility. If the rule of law is not maintained or protected within the Court itself, then that would be the end of the entire justice system of the Country. The Judges at any level are expected to work efficiently, discharge their duties diligently and always try and endeavour to fulfil their constitutional oath.”
(With inputs from Live Law)
Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.