Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court of India has modified its earlier order dated 4 August 2025 in which it had directed that a particular Allahabad High Court judge be permanently barred from handling criminal jurisdiction until retirement. Acting upon an undated request from the Chief Justice of India, the Court deleted paragraphs 25 and 26 of its earlier order, which contained these restrictions, while leaving it to the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court to take any administrative decision deemed fit. The rest of the order, including the remand of the matter to the High Court for fresh consideration, remains unchanged.
Facts
The case originated from an appeal against a judgment of the Allahabad High Court. In its earlier order dated 4 August 2025, the Supreme Court had:
- Set aside the impugned High Court judgment.
- Remanded the matter for fresh consideration of a quashing petition (Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 2507 of 2024).
- Directed that the case be reassigned to another judge and that the concerned judge be removed from handling criminal cases entirely.
The Supreme Court had justified its earlier strict directions on the ground that the impugned order was not the only erroneous order passed by the concerned judge, but that multiple such orders had been noticed over time, affecting the dignity and credibility of the institution.
Subsequently, the Chief Justice of India wrote to the Bench requesting reconsideration of the extreme directions in paragraphs 25 and 26. This prompted the Court to re-notify the matter and modify its earlier ruling.
Issues
- Whether the Supreme Court should retain or modify its earlier administrative directions affecting the judicial roster of a High Court judge.
- How to balance judicial independence and the Supreme Court’s constitutional duty to protect institutional integrity.
- The extent to which the Supreme Court can intervene in roster allocation, which is traditionally within the Chief Justice of the High Court’s domain.
Petitioner’s Arguments
While the petitioner’s core case related to the quashing of criminal proceedings, their interest aligned with ensuring the matter was heard afresh by a different judge. In challenging the earlier High Court order, they had contended that serious errors had been committed warranting intervention by the Supreme Court. They did not specifically oppose the administrative aspects of the 4 August 2025 order but sought expeditious and fair re-hearing of their quashing petition.
Respondent’s Arguments
The State and the other respondents did not oppose the remand. However, the administrative directives in paragraphs 25 and 26 raised concerns about judicial independence and the separation of powers between the Supreme Court and High Court administration. The intervention of the Chief Justice of India indicated that these concerns merited reconsideration.
Analysis of the Law
Under Article 136 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court has broad appellate powers to correct errors of law and ensure justice. While it can issue directions to maintain the integrity of the judicial process, roster allocation is an administrative prerogative of the Chief Justice of the respective High Court, flowing from the “master of the roster” principle.
In its earlier order, the Court relied on its duty to safeguard institutional dignity, particularly when repeated judicial errors undermine public faith in the justice system. However, the modification reflects the principle of judicial comity and recognition that administrative control should ordinarily remain with the High Court’s Chief Justice.
Precedent Analysis
- Gian Singh v. State of Punjab – Although cited in the earlier 4 August 2025 order for quashing principles, its direct relevance here lies in the principle that the Court must exercise inherent powers to secure justice, not to punish.
- Rikhab Birani & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (2025 INSC 512) – Cited in the present order to highlight the Supreme Court’s concern over misuse of criminal proceedings for civil disputes. It demonstrates the Court’s willingness to censure systemic problems in judicial functioning.
- The “Master of the Roster” doctrine – Recognised in multiple decisions, it affirms that only the Chief Justice of a High Court can decide judicial assignments.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court clarified that its earlier directions were never intended to cause embarrassment or cast aspersions on the judge concerned but were issued to protect the dignity of the judiciary. It emphasised that for the vast majority of litigants, the High Court is the final forum, and irrational or perverse orders can erode public trust.
However, in deference to the Chief Justice of India’s written request, and respecting the administrative autonomy of the High Court, the Court deleted paragraphs 25 and 26 from its earlier order. It left the matter to the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court, reaffirming that the Supreme Court’s role is to ensure institutional integrity without overstepping into administrative prerogatives.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court partly modified its earlier 4 August 2025 order by removing directives that barred an Allahabad High Court judge from handling criminal matters until retirement. The case remains remanded to the High Court for fresh hearing before a different judge. The Chief Justice of the High Court retains full discretion over roster allocation.
Implications
This judgment underscores:
- The delicate balance between the Supreme Court’s supervisory powers and the High Court’s administrative independence.
- The importance of protecting judicial dignity while avoiding unnecessary public perception of judicial targeting.
- The Court’s willingness to reconsider strong orders when approached by the Chief Justice of India.
Cases Referred
- Rikhab Birani & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (2025 INSC 512) – Cited for imposing costs on the State of UP due to misuse of criminal proceedings for civil wrongs, reflecting systemic judicial concerns.
FAQs
1. Can the Supreme Court control roster allocation in High Courts?
Generally, no. Roster allocation is the Chief Justice’s prerogative, though the Supreme Court may issue directions in rare cases involving institutional concerns.
2. Why did the Supreme Court delete paragraphs 25 and 26 of its earlier order?
It did so in deference to the Chief Justice of India’s request and to respect the administrative autonomy of the High Court.
3. What happens to the case now?
The matter remains remanded to the Allahabad High Court for a fresh hearing before a different judge, as per the Chief Justice’s assignment.
