Summary
On a written request from the Chief Justice of India, the Court deleted paragraphs 25 and 26 of its order dated 4 August 2025, which had directed that the Allahabad High Court judge whose order it had set aside sit only in a Division Bench and not be assigned criminal work, and left the matter to the Chief Justice of the High Court, while reiterating that it may intervene under Article 136 when the dignity of the institution and the rule of law are at stake.
Issues
- Whether the directions in paragraphs 25 and 26 of the order dated 4 August 2025, regulating the sitting and assignment of work of the High Court judge concerned, should be recalled at the request of the Chief Justice of India.
- Whether such directions interfere with the Chief Justice of the High Court's power as master of the roster.
Provisions considered
- Article 136, Constitution of IndiaThe Court explained that even while acting in its appellate jurisdiction under Article 136, it bears a constitutional responsibility to intervene when matters cross the threshold and the dignity of the institution is imperilled; the earlier directions were issued on that footing and because the impugned order was not the only erroneous order of the judge it had seen. (¶¶ 4, 9)
Held
- The directions were not intended to embarrass or cast aspersions on the judge concerned; they were issued, in view of a series of erroneous orders by the same judge, to protect the honour and dignity of the institution, since for the great majority of litigants the High Court is the final court and they are entitled to orders in accordance with law rather than absurd or irrational ones. (¶¶ 4, 5, 6)
- In deference to the written request of the Chief Justice of India, paragraphs 25 and 26 of the order dated 4 August 2025 are deleted and the order is to be corrected; the matter is left to the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court to look into. (¶¶ 7, 8)
- The Chief Justice of a High Court is the master of the roster and the Court's directions did not interfere with that administrative power; nonetheless, where matters raise institutional concerns affecting the rule of law, the Supreme Court may be compelled to step in and take corrective steps. (¶ 9)
- High Courts should uphold the rule of law and institutional credibility; if the rule of law is not maintained within the courts themselves, the justice delivery system fails. Judges at every level are expected to work efficiently and in fulfilment of their constitutional oath. (¶¶ 11, 12)
Result
Special leave petition disposed of; paragraphs 25 and 26 of the order dated 4 August 2025 deleted; Registry directed to forward a copy of the order to the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court.