Date of Order: August 8, 2025
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.B. Pardiwala & Hon’ble Mr. Justice R. Mahadevan
Subject: Reconsideration and withdrawal of earlier directive restricting a High Court judge’s criminal case roster jurisdiction
Procedural Background
On August 4, 2025, a Division Bench of the Supreme Court passed an order barring Hon’ble Justice Prashant Kumar of the Allahabad High Court from hearing criminal matters. The decision was prompted by the Court’s strong disapproval of Justice Kumar’s order in a case where a litigant initiated criminal proceedings against a property buyer in what the apex court deemed a purely civil dispute.
The Bench had then described the High Court’s decision as “perverse,” noting that it permitted a complaint of “criminal breach of trust” to proceed in a contractual money recovery matter. The Supreme Court further observed that such adjudication risked making “a mockery of justice” and reflected poorly on judicial standards.
Intervention by the Chief Justice of India
Following the August 4 directive, the Chief Justice of India formally addressed a letter to the concerned bench, urging reconsideration of the order in light of judicial propriety, roster independence, and the need to avoid any unintended perception of undermining the dignity of a High Court judge.
Additionally, on August 7, 2025, thirteen sitting judges of the Allahabad High Court addressed a communication to Chief Justice Arun Bhansali, requesting the convening of a Full Court meeting. The letter urged that the Supreme Court’s earlier order be held in abeyance to maintain institutional harmony and roster autonomy.
Bench’s Clarification on August 8, 2025
In its August 8 clarification, the Bench rescinded the earlier directive and restored Justice Kumar’s authority to hear criminal cases. The Hon’ble Judges expressly stated: Our intention was not to cause embarrassment or cast any aspersion upon the learned Judge concerned.”
The Court emphasised that its initial order was motivated by concern over a systemic issue — the misuse of criminal law in matters that are essentially civil. The Bench reaffirmed its commitment to protecting both the dignity of the judiciary and the integrity of the justice delivery system.
Broader Judicial Observations
The Bench recalled similar concerns raised in April 2025 by the then Chief Justice of India, Hon’ble Justice Sanjiv Khanna, who had criticised the Uttar Pradesh government for allowing a growing practice of converting civil disputes — such as property partitions, inheritance disagreements, commercial claims, cheque bounce cases, and contractual breaches — into criminal prosecutions.
The Court emphasized that such practices burden the criminal justice system, risk wrongful convictions, and erode the distinction between civil and criminal jurisdictions.
Observance of Judicial Autonomy
While referring the matter back to the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court for consideration, the Bench categorically reiterated the principle that the Chief Justice of a High Court is the master of the roster. Our directions are not interfering with the administrative powers of the Chief Justice of the High Court.”
Implications and Significance
This order serves as a reaffirmation of judicial independence, inter-court respect, and the master of the roster doctrine. It also underscores the Supreme Court’s ongoing effort to curb the misuse of criminal proceedings in civil disputes, a trend with serious implications for litigants, the justice system, and public faith in judicial remedies.
#SupremeCourt #AllahabadHighCourt #JudicialIndependence #MasterOfRoster #CivilLaw #CriminalLaw #MisuseOfLaw #RuleOfLaw #JudicialIntegrity #LegalSystemReform #IndiaLawUpdate