The Oudh Bar Association has written to CJI Surya Kant seeking expunction of strong Supreme Court remarks against an Allahabad High Court judge. The controversy arose after the top court set aside a bail order in a dowry death case, calling it “one of the most shocking and disappointing” orders.
The Oudh Bar Association has written a detailed letter to the Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant expressing serious concern over certain strong remarks made by the Supreme Court against judges of the Allahabad High Court. The Association said that such comments are stigmatic in nature and can demoralise judges who are already working under heavy pressure.
The issue arose after the Supreme Court set aside a bail order passed by the Allahabad High Court in a dowry death case. While cancelling the bail, the Supreme Court described the High Court’s order as “one of the most shocking and disappointing” orders it had come across. These observations have now led to serious debate within the legal community.
The Allahabad High Court judge who had passed the bail order later recused himself from hearing the matter. He stated that he felt demoralised due to the Supreme Court’s remarks on his earlier decision.
Following this development, the Oudh Bar Association wrote a letter dated February 18 to the CJI requesting that judges of the Supreme Court be advised to avoid making adverse personal remarks against High Court judges while exercising appellate jurisdiction.
In its letter, the Association clearly stated that while higher courts have full authority to review and overturn decisions of lower courts, remarks that question the ability or competence of a judge can have long-term consequences. According to the Bar body, such comments do not remain limited to one case but may impact the overall working environment of the judiciary.
The letter reads,
“The remarks by Supreme Court sitting in appellate or extra ordinary jurisdiction on the order or judgement passed by judges of High Court if stigmatic has chilling effect on the working capacity of a particular judge whose justice delivery capacity is unquestionably appreciated by the members of the Court Annexed Bar at large,”.
The Association further pointed out the difficult working conditions at the Allahabad High Court, which functions from both Lucknow and Prayagraj. It highlighted that the High Court is currently operating with fewer judges than its sanctioned strength, leading to a growing backlog of pending cases. Due to this increasing pendency, judges are already under immense pressure to deliver justice efficiently.
The Bar Association stated that in such a situation, strong remarks from the Supreme Court during appellate proceedings can further affect the morale and judicial independence of High Court judges. It emphasised that the judiciary functions on mutual respect between courts at different levels.
The letter further stated,
“Our judicial system moves on the parallel wheels propelled by the unwavering faith of the litigants strong enough in their belief of getting justice through impartial system manned by judges with maximum output working under already stressed mounting pressure of ever increasing pendency of cases wherein judges of high courts sometimes unfortunately made to feel the impact of unexpected remarks made by the Apex Court on judicial side in its appellate jurisdiction which is felt to be demoralising effect on their judicial mind adverse to the capacity as a judge in the dispensation of justice,”.
The Association concluded its letter by requesting that the Supreme Court reconsider and expunge the remarks made in its February 9 judgment in order to protect judicial functioning and independence. The letter was signed by S Chandra, President of the Oudh Bar Association, and Lalichwan (Lalit Kishore Tiwari), General Secretary of the Association.
The controversy relates to the Supreme Court’s ruling in the case of Chetram Verma v. State of UP. In this case, a Bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and KV Viswanathan set aside a bail order granted by the Allahabad High Court in a dowry death matter.
The criminal case began with an FIR filed by the father of a 22-year-old woman who died within three months of her marriage. The post-mortem report stated that the cause of death was asphyxia due to strangulation. The High Court had granted bail to the accused, considering the period of custody already undergone and the absence of any criminal record.
However, the Supreme Court observed that the seriousness of the offence was not properly considered. It also noted that the statutory presumption under Section 118 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 was ignored while granting bail. On this basis, the Supreme Court cancelled the bail and criticised the High Court’s reasoning.
Also Read: Dowry Death? Dying Declaration Sends Mother-In-Law To Jail For Life: District Court
After the Supreme Court’s observations, Justice Pankaj Bhatia of the Allahabad High Court recused himself from hearing bail matters and requested that such cases not be assigned to him in the future. He reportedly stated that the comments had a demoralising and chilling effect on him.
The matter has now sparked wider discussions within the legal fraternity about judicial discipline, appellate criticism, and the importance of maintaining institutional respect between courts. The Oudh Bar Association’s letter seeks to balance the power of appellate review with the need to protect judicial morale and independence in the justice delivery system.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Dowry Death
