New Delhi, Aug 8 (PTI) Following Chief Justice of India B R Gavai’s intervention, the Supreme Court on Friday deleted its observations criticising an Allahabad High Court judge for allowing criminal proceedings in a civil dispute case and said its intention was not to embarrass or cast aspersions on him.
On August 4, a bench of Justice J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan observed it was expected of the high court’s Justice Prashant Kumar to know the well-settled position of law that in cases of civil disputes a complainant couldn’t be permitted to resort to criminal proceedings as the same would amount to abuse of process of the law.
“We request the Chief Justice of the High Court of Allahabad to assign this matter to any other Judge of the High Court as he may deem fit. The Chief Justice of High Court shall immediately withdraw the present criminal determination from the concerned Judge. The Chief Justice shall make the concerned judge sit in a Division Bench with a seasoned senior judge of the High Court (sic),” the top court said.
Clarifying its position on Friday, the apex court said it did not intend to cause embarrassment or cast aspersions on the judge.
“We would not even think of doing so. However, when matters cross the threshold and the dignity of the institution is imperiled, it becomes the constitutional responsibility of this court to intervene, even when acting under its appellate jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution,” it said.
Hours later, Allahabad High Court Bar Association welcomed the apex court’s move to delete the remarks and Allahabad High Court Bar Association president Anil Tiwari said, “The Supreme Court realised that it had made a wrong order, withdrawing which is a very good step.” The top court’s Friday order said the observations were meant to ensure the dignity of the judiciary was maintained.
“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 bench noted litigants from all over the country moved different courts 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. Litigants who come to court expect the justice delivery system to function in accordance with law, not to obtain absurd or irrational orders,” the court said.
The bench further explained it was deleting the observations after a request was made by Chief Justice Gavai to reconsider the matter.
“We have received an undated letter from the Chief Justice of India requesting the reconsideration of the observations… In such circumstances, we directed the Registry to re-notify the main matter for considering the request made by the Chief Justice of India,” the bench said.
The order, however, said courts cannot be “separate islands”, disassociated from the institution.
While acknowledging the high court chief justice was the master of the roster, the top court left it to him to take call in the matter of the judge.
“We fully acknowledge that the Chief Justice of a 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. When matters raise institutional concerns affecting the rule of law, this Court may be compelled to step in and take corrective steps,” the order added.
But the apex court hoped it does not come across such a “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 bench said.
The order underlined the responsibilities of judges who were expected to work “efficiently, discharge their duties diligently and always try and endeavour to fulfil their constitutional oath”.
A group of judges of the Allahabad High Court wrote to Chief Justice Arun Bhansali urging him to convene a full court meeting in response to the Supreme Court’s unprecedented order.
On August 4, the same top court bench stripped criminal matters of the roster of the Allahabad High Court judge till he demitted office after observing he “erroneously” upheld summons of criminal nature in a civil dispute.
In its order, the top court chastised Justice Kumar’s judicial reasoning and directed the high court administration to remove him from the criminal roster.
Justice Kumar was directed to sit alongside a senior judge in a division bench, comprising two judges, until his retirement.
Calling the high court judge’s order “erroneous”, the top court, which was hearing a challenge against it, said the judge went ahead to the extent of saying the complainant should be permitted to institute criminal proceedings for the purpose of recovery of the balance amount.
The top court said the high court order was one of the “worst and most erroneous” orders that it came across in their respective tenures as judges of the top court.
The high court had dismissed an application filed by one M/S Shikhar Chemicals seeking to quash summoning order in a case of commercial transaction.
In the case, the complainant (Lalita Textiles) delivered goods in the form of threads to Shikhar Chemicals worth Rs 52.34 lakh of which an amount of Rs 47.75 lakh came to be paid, however, the balance amount has not been paid, till date.
Lalita Textiles filed a criminal complaint for the recovery of the balance amount following which its statement was recorded and a magisterial court issued summons against the applicant.
The company moved the high court saying it was a civil dispute but high court rejected the plea. PKS AMK AMK
This report is auto-generated from PTI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.