New Delhi: The Supreme Court bench, which had castigated an Allahabad High Court judge earlier this week and directed the Chief Justice to deroster him of criminal matters, has deleted the said directive.
The judges clarified that their direction was not to embarrass or cast aspersions on the high court judge, but to protect the honour and integrity of the judiciary, in the interest of justice.
On 4 August, while setting aside Justice Prashant Kumar’s order to allow criminal prosecution in a case that was purely civil in nature, Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan had issued directions to the Allahabad High Court Chief Justice to not allow criminal work to the judge until his retirement. The top court had gone a step further to order the Chief Justice to make the judge sit with a senior colleague in a Division Bench.
This direction had sparked criticism, with 13 judges of the high court writing to their Chief Justice Thursday to convene a full court meeting and not give effect to the Supreme Court order. They opposed the order on the ground that the Chief Justice of the high court is the master of roster, and no judicial direction, even by the apex court, can be issued to him/her to allot or not allocate work to a judge.
Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai also wrote to Justice Pardiwala, urging him to reconsider the direction. Disclosing the receipt of the CJI’s letter in open court, Justice Pardiwala, while pronouncing the deletion of the specific paragraphs to the high court Chief Justice, said that he decided to renotify the case on CJI’s request.
He said that he is aware that the Chief Justice is the master of the roster, but added that the Supreme Court’s intervention becomes imminent when “courts cross threshold and dignity of the institution is imperilled”.
“The high courts are not separate islands that can be disassociated from this institution. We reiterate, whatever we said in our order was to ensure that the dignity and the authority of the judiciary as a whole is maintained high in the minds of the people of this country. It is not just a matter of error or mistake to appreciate the legal points. We were concerned about the appropriate directions in a view to protect the honour of the institution,” he said.
It was also clarified that the extreme directions were issued keeping in mind the bench’s concern over the high court’s refusal to quash the criminal cases because civil remedy is a time-consuming process. Justice Pardiwala reiterated the court’s interference in the high court order was to ensure dignity of the institution, uphold judiciary’s authority and reinforce the faith of citizens.
The bench added that for 90 percent of litigants in India, a high court is the final court of justice, and only 10 percent can afford to move SC. Litigants, it said, expect the justice delivery system to give directions in accordance with law, and not give absurd and irrational arguments.
Therefore, the bench maintained that its direction in the 4 August order was issued only in the interest of justice and not to highlight an error or mistake committed by the high court judge.
As the bench ordered deletion of the objectionable direction, it spoke of how the Supreme Court has, in several cases, appreciated high court judges for giving an unimpeachable order.
“Our directions are absolutely not interfering with his administrative powers. When matters raise institutional concern, affecting the rule of law, this Court may be compelled to step in,” the bench observed.
Justices Pardiwala and Mahadevan quoted a recent judgment delivered by a bench led by former CJI Sanjiv Khanna, where the Supreme Court complained about being flooded with cases where civil disputes have been made subject of criminal proceedings. This phenomenon continues despite the top court giving multiple verdicts against it, they said.
As the bench left it to the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court to decide his course of action in the matter, it hoped that the top court does not “come across such perverse and unjust order”, and that the high court maintains the rule of law to uphold the institution’s dignity.
Expecting judges to work efficiently and discharge their duties diligently, the bench warned against high court judges crossing the threshold, saying it would end the “entire justice delivery system”.
(Edited by Mannat Chugh)
Also Read: ‘Worse than impeachment’—Legal fraternity on SC’s removal of Allahabad HC judge from criminal roster