TODAY, THE SUPREME COURT modified its order to the extent that it had directed the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court to make Justice Prashant Kumar of the Allahabad High Court to sit on a division Bench with a seasoned senior judge of the High Court and that the Chief Justice would not assign any criminal matters to him.
Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Mahadevan directed that the paragraphs to this effect be deleted from their order passed on August 4.
This decision followed a letter from Chief Justice of India (‘CJI’) B.R. Gavai to the same Bench, requesting reconsideration of these directions.
The Times of India reported that CJI Gavai and several senior judges had expressed serious reservations about the tone and tenor of the directions issued by the Bench led by Justice Pardiwala.
In a series of cases, the Supreme Court has held that the assignment of cases is the sole prerogative of the concerned Chief Justice and is not justiciable.
While modifying its order, the Bench clarified that its intention was not to cause embarrassment or cast aspersions on the concerned judge.
The Bench once again commented on the order passed by Justice Kumar, noting that it was not merely a matter of an error or mistake committed by him in appreciating the legal points or facts.
“We were concerned about issuing appropriate directions in the interest of justice and to protect the honor and dignity of the institution. Litigants in this country approach courts of law to seek justice. For 90% of litigants, the High Court is the final court of justice. Only the remaining 10% can afford to approach the Supreme Court. Litigants expect the justice delivery system to function in accordance with the law, not to receive absurd or irrational orders,” the Bench said.
Yesterday, in a significant move, as many as 13 judges of the Allahabad High Court wrote to their Chief Justice requesting a Full Court meeting to pass a resolution against the order passed by Justice Pardiwala.
In a letter authored by Justice Arindam Sinha of the Allahabad High Court, it was stated that the Supreme Court lacks administrative superintendence over High Courts.
The proposed Full Court resolution, as outlined by Justice Sinha, not only called for defying the Supreme Court’s order but also expressed the Allahabad High Court’s anguish over its tone.
Background
The complainant claimed to be an unpaid seller. According to him, he delivered goods in the form of thread to the petitioner, worth Rs. 52,34,385/-, of which Rs. 47,75,000/- was paid by the petitioner who was before the Supreme Court. However, the balance amount remained unpaid.
To recover the balance amount, the complainant filed a criminal complaint and initiated criminal proceedings. The police did not lodge the FIR. The complainant then approached a magistrate.
The magistrate took cognizance of the complaint but postponed the issuance of process, deeming it appropriate to initiate a magisterial inquiry under Section 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
At the conclusion of the inquiry, the Court issued process only for the offense punishable under Section 406 (criminal breach of trust) of the IPC.
The petitioner before the High Court challenged this order.
The High Court, while rejecting the petition, observed: “If this Court allows the matter to be referred to a civil court on account of a civil dispute between the parties, it would amount to a travesty of justice, and O.P. No. 2 would suffer irreparable loss and might not be in a position to overcome the financial constraints to pursue the matter.”
Irked by these observations, Justice Pardiwala’s Bench stated that it was one of the worst and most erroneous orders they had come across during their respective tenures as judges of the Supreme Court.
While allowing the petition, the Bench directed the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court to withdraw criminal case assignments from Justice Kumar and to assign the concerned judge to a Division Bench with a seasoned senior judge of the High Court.
Additionally, it was directed that the concerned judge not be assigned any criminal cases until he demits office.
This order sparked controversy, as many believed it undermined the position of the High Court and, in particular, the Chief Justice.