The Judiciary's Responsibility: A Supreme Court Order on Erroneous Judgments.


08-August-2025 Special Leave Petition >> Criminal Law  

In a rare turn of events, the Supreme Court recently in M/s. Shikhar Chemicals v/s The State Of Uttar Pradesh & Another modified its own order following a request from the Chief Justice of India. The case revolved around a judgment from the Allahabad High Court that the Supreme Court found to be "erroneous." In its initial ruling on August 4, 2025, the Supreme Court not only set aside the High Court's decision and sent the case back for a new hearing but also took the extraordinary step of issuing specific directives concerning the concerned judge.

The original order directed the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court to reassign the case to another judge, withdraw the current criminal determination from the concerned judge, and, most notably, make the judge sit in a Division Bench with a senior judge and bar them from handling any criminal cases, even as a single judge, for the remainder of their career. The Court explained that these directions were a result of having seen "many such erroneous orders" from the same judge over time.

 
 

Following a letter from the Chief Justice of India requesting a reconsideration of these specific directions, the Supreme Court convened to review its decision. The bench clarified that its intention was not to cause embarrassment but to fulfill its "constitutional responsibility" to intervene when the dignity of the institution is imperiled. The Court emphasized that while it is the duty of the High Courts to deliver justice, only a small percentage of litigants can afford to appeal to the Supreme Court. Therefore, it is crucial that High Courts provide just and rational orders.

In a show of deference to the Chief Justice of India's request, the Supreme Court decided to delete the controversial paragraphs 25 and 26 from its original order. The Court stated that it was leaving the matter to the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court to "look into" the issue. It reaffirmed that while the Chief Justice of a High Court is the master of the roster, the Supreme Court may still intervene when institutional concerns affect the rule of law. The Court concluded by expressing hope that such "perverse and unjust orders" would not be seen again, reminding all judges of their duty to work diligently and uphold the rule of law to maintain public faith in the justice system.