New Delhi, Aug 8 (UNI) In a rare show of open dissent, thirteen sitting judges of the Allahabad High Court have formally urged their Chief Justice to convene a Full Court to oppose compliance with a recent Supreme Court order that divested Justice Prashant Kumar of all criminal case assignments until his retirement.
The judges, led by Justice Arindam Sinha, have signed a letter dated August 7, 2025, asserting that the apex court’s directions in paragraphs 24 to 26 of its August 4 order are “beyond its administrative authority,” as the Supreme Court does not have superintendence over High Courts. The letter also voices “anguish” over the “tone and tenor” of the top court’s observations.
On August 4, a bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan came down heavily on Justice Kumar, questioning whether his order refusing to quash a criminal complaint was passed due to “extraneous considerations” or “sheer ignorance of law.”
The court ordered that no criminal matters be allotted to him and that he sit only with a senior judge in a division bench, remarks the letter describes as an “unfounded and baseless indictment” made without issuing notice or allowing Justice Kumar to respond.
Citing the Supreme Court’s own ruling in Amar Pal Singh v. State of UP (2012), the letter argues that higher courts must show restraint when making adverse comments against judicial officers who are not present to defend themselves. It further notes that Justice Kumar’s order relied on apex court precedents in Lee Kun Hee v. State of U.P. and Syed Askari Hadi Ali Augustine Imam v. State (Delhi Administration).
The signatories include Justices Krishan Pahal, Sameer Jain, Anish Kumar Gupta, Manish Nigam, Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, Gautam Chowdhary, Donadi Ramesh, Shekhar Saraf, Manoj Bajaj, Kshitij Shailendra, Saurabh Srivastava, and PK Giri.
The August 4 ruling has already faced criticism as an overreach into the High Court Chief Justice’s exclusive prerogative to assign judicial rosters.
In a new twist, the case previously shown as disposed has been re-listed for hearing tomorrow before the same bench under “Direction Matters,” with its status now marked as “pending” on the Supreme Court website.
