The Supreme Court had earlier passed a significant order on 4th August 2025 in the case of M/s Shikhar Chemicals vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (SLP Crl No. 11445/2025). In that order, the apex court set aside the Allahabad High Court’s judgment and remanded the matter back for fresh hearing. The court had issued several strong directions against the concerned High Court judge due to repeated erroneous orders.
- The matter was sent back to the High Court for reconsideration of Criminal Misc. Application No. 2507 of 2024.
- The Chief Justice of Allahabad High Court was requested to assign the case to a different judge.
- The concerned judge was directed:
- Not to be assigned any criminal determination cases.
- To be seated in a Division Bench with a senior judge.
- If ever sitting as a single judge, not to hear criminal matters.
“We have been constrained to issue directions as contained in Paras 22, 23, 24, 25 and 26 respectively… Many such erroneous orders have been looked into by us over a period of time.” — Supreme Court (Para 27, Original Order)
Read also:- Supreme Court Hears High Court Judge's Plea Against In-House Procedure for Removal
On receiving a letter from the Chief Justice of India, the Supreme Court decided to review and re-notify the matter to consider the request regarding paragraphs 25 and 26 of the earlier order.
After a careful review, the Supreme Court clarified that its intent was not to embarrass or cast doubt on the judge, but to protect the dignity of the judiciary.
“When matters cross the threshold and the dignity of the institution is imperiled, it becomes the constitutional responsibility of this Court to intervene.” - Supreme Court
However, in respect of the Chief Justice of India’s request and to avoid conflict with administrative powers of the High Court, the court deleted paragraphs 25 and 26 from its previous order.
Read also:- 13 Judges Challenge SC's Administrative Authority Over High Courts
The Supreme Court made it clear that the Chief Justice of a High Court remains the master of the roster, and the court was not interfering with those powers. The responsibility to deal with the concerned judge is now left to the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court.
The court emphasized that this wasn't just a matter of mistake or misinterpretation by the judge. It was about maintaining the credibility of the judiciary and protecting the rule of law.
“For 90% of litigants, the High Court is the final court of justice. They expect the system to function according to law, not to receive absurd or irrational orders.” - Supreme Court
The court cited its earlier ruling in Rikhab Birani & Anr. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. [2025 INSC 512], where it had criticized the misuse of criminal proceedings for civil disputes.
Read also:- Power Supply Disruption in Supreme Court’s Lawyers Chambers on August 9: Official Notice Issued
“We are also constrained to impose costs of Rs. 50,000/- on the State of Uttar Pradesh… civil wrongs being made the subject of criminal proceedings.” - Supreme Court
- The Supreme Court expressed hope that such perverse or unjust orders do not arise in the future.
- Judges must act with efficiency, diligence, and integrity, upholding their constitutional oath.
- The court reaffirmed that institutional credibility and public trust are cornerstones of the Indian justice system.
“If the Rule of Law is not protected within the court, it would be the end of the entire justice delivery system.”
The Special Leave Petition was disposed of, and the Registry was directed to send a copy of the revised order to the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court at the earliest.
Case: M/s Shikhar Chemicals v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
SLP (Crl.) No. 11445 of 2025
Order Date: August 8, 2025
