After CJI’s request, Supreme Court recalls order removing Allahabad HC judge from hearing criminal cases

The bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan said after the August 4 order, it had “received an undated letter from… the Chief Justice of India [B R Gavai] requesting us to reconsider the directions issued by us in paras 25 and 26 respectively of our order…” and in view of this, asked the Registry to re-notify the primary matter to consider the request.

The bench said it was deleting the concerned paragraphs in deference to the request of CJI Gavai.

Recalling the controversial paragraphs of its order, the bench said, “We would not even think of doing so. However, when 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.”

“Whenever we come across legally unimpeachable orders and orders that have ensured complete justice to the litigants, we have always taken the opportunity to record our appreciation for the judges of the high court.”

Purview of high courts

Pointing out that high courts are “not separate islands that can be disassociated from this institution,” the bench reiterated, “Whatever we said in our order was to ensure that the dignity and authority of the judiciary as a whole is maintained high in the minds of the people of this country, as that will go a long way in reinforcing the faith that is reposed in us.”

The August 4 order led to disquiet in the legal community, with many of the view that the SC should not have gone to the extent of withdrawing work from an HC judge for having a different legal point of view. Several judges of the Allahabad High Court also sought a full court reference to discuss the SC observations and directions against their colleague.

The SC order was also seen as encroaching upon the powers of the High Court Chief Justice, who is the master of the roster, and is vested with powers to decide which judge hears what.

Clarifying the position, the bench said Friday, “We fully acknowledge that the Chief Justice of the High Court is the master of the roster. But as observed above, our directions are absolutely not interfering with the administrative power of the Chief Justice of the High Court.”

Explaining the setting aside of the Allahabad HC judgement by its August 4 order, the bench said, “It is not just a matter of error or mistake committed 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 with a view to protecting the honour and dignity of the institution.”

“The litigants in this country approach different courts of law to seek justice. For 90 per cent of the litigants in this country, the High Court is the final court of justice. Only the remaining 10 per cent can afford to approach the Supreme Court. The litigants who come to court expect the justice delivery system to function in accordance with law and not to obtain absurd or irrational orders,” said the Supreme Court bench.

Directing that the August 4 order be corrected accordingly, the bench said, “We leave it to the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court to now look into the matter. When matters raise institutional concerns affecting the rule of law, this court may be compelled to step in, and take corrective steps.”

It pointed out that in another matter some time ago, another bench had imposed a cost of Rs 50,000 on the Uttar Pradesh Government for invoking criminal charges in a civil case.

“We hope that in future we may not have to come across such perverse and unjust orders from any high court. The endeavour of the high court should always be to uphold the rule of law and 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 delivery system in the country.”

“Judges at any level are expected to work efficiently, command, discharge their duties diligently and always try and endeavour to fulfil their constitutional purpose.”