LUCKNOW: In an unprecedented move, 13 judges of the Allahabad High Court have taken strong exception to the observations made by a division bench of the Supreme Court concerning a sitting judge of the High Court. In a letter dated August 7, 2025, addressed to the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court, the judges urged the convening of a full court meeting to defy the Supreme Court’s August 4 order, which stripped Justice Prashant Kumar of his criminal roster until his retirement.
The judges argued that the Supreme Court lacks administrative superintendence over High Courts and, therefore, the directions in paragraphs 24 to 26 of the apex court’s order—pertaining to Justice Kumar—should not be complied with. They further called upon the full court to formally record its displeasure regarding the tone and tenor of the Supreme Court’s remarks. A full court meeting, typically reserved for matters of significant legal or constitutional importance, involves the presence of all or a substantial number of the court’s judges.
The Supreme Court’s division bench, comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan, had sharply criticized an order passed by Justice Prashant Kumar, in which he directed the Allahabad High Court Chief Justice to assign him to a division bench alongside a senior judge. The apex court also mandated that no criminal cases be allotted to Justice Kumar henceforth.
The letter, initiated by Justice Arindam Sinha in his individual capacity, expressed shock and dismay over the Supreme Court’s observations. It stated that the remarks against Justice Kumar violated the principles established by the Supreme Court itself in Amar Pal Singh v. State of UP (2012), which emphasized judicial restraint when commenting on officers unable to defend themselves. The letter further defended Justice Kumar’s order, citing precedents set by the Supreme Court in Lee Kun Hee v. State of UP and Sayed Askari Hadi Ali Augustine Imam v. State (Delhi Administration).
Additionally, the judges objected to the Supreme Court’s suggestion that Justice Kumar’s order might have been influenced by "extraneous considerations" or "sheer ignorance," calling the insinuations unfounded and baseless. The letter, circulated under Chapter III, Rule 9 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952, garnered the signatures of 12 other judges, underscoring the collective discontent within the High Court over the Supreme Court’s intervention.