In a rare move reflecting judicial introspection, the Supreme Court of India has revoked its own earlier directive that had barred Justice Prashant Kumar of the Allahabad High Court from handling criminal matters. This reversal came following a letter from Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai, urging the court to reconsider the propriety of stepping into the High Court’s administrative jurisdiction.

 

The controversy arose from an order passed on August 4, 2025, by a Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan in the case M/s Shikhar Chemicals vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.

 

The matter involved a financial dispute over ₹47.75 lakh. The Supreme Court observed that the dispute was clearly civil in nature, yet was allowed to proceed as a criminal case. Calling the High Court’s handling of the matter “one of the worst and most erroneous orders”, the Bench directed the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court to:

• Remove Justice Prashant Kumar from the criminal roster until his retirement.

• Ensure that he only sits on a division bench along with a senior judge.

 

This marked an extraordinary situation where the top court effectively gave administrative instructions to a High Court—a domain typically reserved for the High Court’s own Chief Justice.

 

Following the order, Chief Justice B.R. Gavai wrote to the concerned Bench, pointing out that judicial directions relating to roster and judge assignments infringe upon the exclusive administrative authority of the High Court Chief Justice. His letter prompted the Supreme Court to revisit the issue.

 

Responding to the CJI’s concerns, the Bench reconvened on August 8, 2025, and deleted paragraphs 25 and 26 of its earlier order, thereby nullifying the directive that restrained Justice Kumar from criminal jurisdiction. The judges clarified that although they stood by their critical remarks on the merits of the case, the power to allocate judicial work lies solely with the High Court administration.

 

Justice Pardiwala noted that there was no intention to humiliate the High Court judge, and the decision to recall the direction was made out of respect for institutional boundaries and the CJI’s communication.