NEW DELHI: In an unprecedented order, the Supreme Court has stripped criminal matters off the roster of a Allahabad High Court judge “till he demits office” after he “erroneously” upheld summons of criminal nature in a civil dispute.
Taking stern view on the judge’s order, a bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan directed removal of criminal matters from his roster till his retirement while tasking him to sit with a senior judge in a division bench.
The high court judge had refused to quash a magistrate’s summoning order against a company which was accused of not paying the balance monetary sum in a business transaction of civil nature.
Calling the order by the high court judge “worst and most erroneous”, the top court said the judge went ahead to the extent of saying that the complainant should be permitted to institute criminal proceedings for recovery of the balance amount.
“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 High Court,” the bench said.
The top court was hearing a challenge to the high court’s order which dismissed an application filed by one M/S Shikhar Chemicals seeking to quash summoning order in a case of commercial transaction.
“The Chief Justice of the High Court shall immediately withdraw the present criminal determination from the concerned Judge... make the concerned judge sit in a Division Bench with a seasoned senior judge of the High Court,” the top court order read.
Also in top court
‘Sexual assault cases demand sensitivity’
The Supreme Court on Tuesday underscored the need to remain sensitive in sexual assaults of helpless woman as it confirmed the punishment of a man in a POCSO case. The verdict said a rapist “not only violates the victim’s privacy and personal integrity, but inevitably causes serious psychological as well as physical harm”.
‘Protect honest govt staff from plaints’
The Court on Tuesday stressed on striking a balance to protect honest government servants discharging their functions from frivolous complaints while ensuring the corrupt were not shielded. The bench said if honest public servants were made vulnerable because of vexatious complaints, they could not function.