Supreme Court’s order de-rostering an Allahabad HC judge sparks outrage among top judges. CJI Gavai seeks to resolve breach of judicial norms and natural justice.
New Delhi: A recent order passed by a bench of the Supreme Court, led by Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, has caused serious concern among the top judges of the country. The order harshly criticised a sitting judge of the Allahabad High Court for lacking proper knowledge of criminal law and directed that he be permanently barred from hearing criminal cases.
Now, the Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai is in consultations with senior judges to find a way to resolve the situation, which many feel goes against established legal principles and past Supreme Court rulings.
According to several legal experts and former Chief Justices of India, the order passed by Justices Pardiwala and Mahadevan overstepped the boundary of judicial propriety.
The two judges had directed the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court to take immediate action against the concerned judge by stating:
“immediately withdraw the present criminal determination from the concerned judge”
and further ordered:
“make the judge sit in a division bench with a seasoned senior judge”.
The bench also declared:
“We further direct that the concerned judge shall not be assigned any criminal determination, till he demits office.”
This direction effectively removes the judge from hearing any criminal matters for the rest of his career. The order came without giving the judge a chance to explain his side or justify the decision that led to such criticism, which is against the principles of natural justice.
Even though the High Court judge may have made a significant legal error, the Supreme Court has consistently maintained that any mistakes made by lower courts must be corrected through legal appeals, not by public humiliation.
In fact, the Supreme Court’s decision to criticize and punish the judge in such strong terms has raised concerns about judicial discipline and constitutional boundaries.
The SC bench described the judge’s order in the case as one of the worst they had seen, remarking:
“The judge concerned has not only cut a sorry figure for himself but has made a mockery of justice. We are at our wits’ end to understand what is wrong with the Indian judiciary at the level of HC.”
This strong language has not gone down well with many in the legal fraternity. Former Chief Justices of India and legal scholars believe that even if a judge errs in understanding legal principles, such mistakes should be addressed through proper appellate procedures.
They assert that punishing a judge and interfering in the administrative functions of a High Court crosses a constitutional line. They emphasized that assigning or removing cases from a judge is solely the right of the High Court’s Chief Justice.
In earlier rulings, the Supreme Court had clearly laid down the law regarding this matter. In the Braj Kishore Thakur vs Union of India (1997) case, the apex court had said:
“Higher courts must remind themselves constantly that higher tiers are provided in the judicial hierarchy to set right errors which could possibly have crept in findings or orders of courts at the lower tiers. Such powers are certainly not for belching diatribe at judicial personages in lower cadre. It is best to remember the words of a jurist that ‘a judge who has not committed any error is yet to be born’.”
Similarly, in Rajasthan vs Prakash Chand (1997), a three-judge Supreme Court bench stated:
“that the administrative control of HC vests in the chief justice alone. On the judicial side, however, he is only the first amongst equals. The CJ is the master of the roster. He alone has the prerogative to constitute benches of the court and allocate cases to the benches so constituted. The puisne judges can only do that work as is allotted to them by the chief justice or under his directions. No judge or judges can give directions to the Registry for listing any case before him or them which runs counter to the directions given by the chief justice.”
This ruling was extended to apply to the Supreme Court as well by another three-judge bench decision in 2018.
What makes the current controversy more delicate is that this same SC bench — comprising Justices Pardiwala and Mahadevan — had earlier passed another controversial order fixing deadlines for the President of India and Governors to approve or reject state bills.
This led the President to seek a formal opinion from the Supreme Court on whether it has the authority to set such deadlines under the Constitution or use Article 142 to assume such powers.
Click Here to Read Our Reports on CJI BR Gavai
