English
English
English
This verdict comes after the Allahabad High Court refused to dismiss a criminal complaint. Yesterday on Thursday 13 judges of the Allahabad HC wrote a letter to CJI Arun Bhasali urging him to convene a full court meeting and not to implement this order.
Supreme Court recalls its 4 August order
New Delhi: After the intervention of the Chief Justice, the Supreme Court on Friday withdrew its 4 August directive that had barred an Allahabad High Court Judge Prashant Kumar from hearing any criminal cases for the remainder of his tenure and ordered him to sit with a senior colleague to “learn the nuances of law,” reports Dynamite News correspondent.
This verdict comes after the Allahabad High Court refused to dismiss a criminal complaint. Yesterday on Thursday 13 judges of the Allahabad HC wrote a letter to CJI Arun Bhasali urging him to convene a full court meeting and not to implement this order.
The Bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan decided to recall the directions after it received a letter from Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai requesting it to reconsider the said directions and observations against Justice Kumar.
Therefore, the Court deleted the paragraphs from the 4 August by which it had directed the High Court Chief Justice to remove Justice Kumar from handling criminal cases.
"Since a request has been made by the CJI, we hereby delete paras 25 and 26 from our 4th August order. While we delete it, we leave it the Chief Justice of the High Court to now look into the matter. We fully acknowledge that the Chief Justice of the HC is the master of the roster. The directions are absolutely not interfering with the administrative power of the Chief Justice of the High Court. When matters affect the rule of law, this Court will be compelled to take corrective steps," the Bench said.
The Bench made it clear that its intention was not to embarrass the concerned High Court judge.
"At the outset, we must clarify that our intention was not to cause embarrassment or cast aspersions on the concerned judge," the Bench clarified.
It justified the 4 August order, saying that the intention was to ensure that the dignity of the judiciary is held high.
"Whenever we come across legally unimpeachable order and orders that have ensured complete justice, we have recorded appreciation for the judges. The High Courts are not separate islands that can be disassociated from the institution. Whatever we said in our order was to ensure that the dignity of the judiciary is held high."
The Court had on August 4 come down heavily on Justice Kumar for his verdict stating that criminal prosecution could be used as an alternative means to recover money in civil disputes.
In a drastic direction issued that day, the Supreme Court had urged the High Court Chief Justice to strip Justice Kumar of criminal roster till his retirement and make him sit in a Division Bench with a seasoned senior judge of the High Court.
"We further direct that the concerned judge shall not be assigned any criminal determination, till he demits office. If at all at some point of time, he is to be made to sit as a single judge, he shall not be assigned any criminal determination," the Supreme Court had ordered.
The top court's order attracted a lot negative press.
At least 13 judges of the Allahabad High Court wrote to its Chief Justice Arun Bhansali urging him to defy the Supreme Court's direction and also sought a full court meeting to discuss the matter.
According to media reports, judges of the Supreme Court also took exception to the direction issued by the Bench led by Justice Pardiwala.
The matter was then later relisted for hearing today even though it was disposed of earlier.
On August 4, the Bench had made strong remarks about the High Court judge’s understanding of criminal law.
“We are shocked by the findings recorded in paragraph 12 of the impugned order. The judge has gone to the extent of stating that asking the complainant to pursue civil remedy would be very unreasonable as civil suits take a long time, and therefore the complainant may be permitted to institute criminal proceedings for recovery,” it had noted.
