THROUGH the judgement of the Case- M/s Shikhar Chemicals v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, delivered on August 8, 2025 by Justice J B Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan, at the Supreme Court, have, in response to the written request made by the Chief Justice of India, to reconsider their judgement of the same case passed on August 4, 2025, made it clear that the Court’s intention was not to cause embarrassment or cast aspersions on the concerned Judge.

 

The Court would not even think of doing so. The SC further said that however, when matters cross the threshold and the dignity of the institution is imperiled it becomes the constitutional responsibility of this Court to intervene, even acting under its appellate jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution. The directions in paras 25 and 26 respectively were issued keeping in mind the observation in para 27, which reads as follows : “27. WE have been constrained to issue directions as contained in paras 22, 23, 24, 25 and 26 respectively, keeping in mind that the impugned order is not the erroneous order of the concerned Judge that the Court has looked into for the first time. Many such erroneous orders have been looked into by us over a period of time.” Similarly, whenever the Court comes across legally unimpeachable orders, those have ensured complete justice to the litigants, the Court has always taken opportunity to record appreciation for the judges of the High Courts.

 

The High Courts are not separate islands that can be disassociated from this institution and the Court has reiterated that whatever was said in the Court’s order was to ensure that the dignity and authority of the judiciary as a whole is maintained high in the minds of the people of this country, as that will go a long way in re-enforcing the faith that is reposed in us. It is not just an error or mistake by the Judge concerned in appreciating the legal points or facts. The Court was concerned about the appropriate directions to be issued in the interest of justice and with a view to protect the honour and dignity of the institution. The litigants in this country approach the different courts of law to seek Justice. For 90% of litigants in this country, the High Court is the final Court of Justice. Only the remaining 10% can afford to approach the Supreme Court. The litigants who come to Court expect the Justice Delivery System to function in accordance with law not to obtain absurd or irrational orders.

 

The Supreme Court has received an undated letter from the Chief justice of India (CJI) “requesting” this division bench to reconsider the directions issued by it in paras 25 and 26 respectively, in its order of August 4, 2025 passed in SLP 11445 of 2025. In these circumstances, this SC division bench directed the Registry to re-notify the main matter for the purpose of considering the “request” made by the CJI. Accordingly, the matter was re-notified on August 8, 2025. Through its order of August 4, 2025, this division Bench had set aside the impugned judgement of the Allahabad HC and remanded the case to the HC for fresh consideration in accordance with law. While allowing the Criminal SLP, the Court has observed: “22. In the result, we partly allow this petition and set aside the impugned order passed by the HC. We remand the matter to the HC for fresh consideration of the Misc. Criminal Application 2507 0f 2024. The quashing petition shall be reheard on its own merits keeping in mind the dictum laid in two decisions of the SC.” 23. The Chief Justice of the Allahabad HC has been requested to assign this matter to any other Judge of the HC as he may deem fit. 24.

 

The Chief Justice of the HC shall immediately withdraw the present criminal determination from the concerned Judge. 25. The Chief Justice Shall make the concerned Judge sit in division bench with a seasoned Senior Judge of the HC. 26. We further direct that the concerned Judge shall not be assigned any criminal determination, till he demits office. If at all at some point of time, he is made to be sit as a Single Judge, he shall not be assigned any criminal determination. Since, a “request” has been made in writing by the Chief Justice of India, and in due deference to the same, the division Bench hereby delete the paras 25 and 26 from its order of August 4, 2025. The order is to be corrected accordingly. While the SC is deleting paras, 25 and 26 respectively, from its order of August 4, 2025, it left it to the chief Justice of the HC to look into the matter. SC has fully acknowledged that a HC Chief Justice is the master of the roster. But as observed herein, the SC’s directions are not absolutely interfering with the administrative power of a Chief Justice of the HC.

 

When matters raise institutional concerns affecting the rule of law, SC may be compelled to step in and take corrective steps. Recently, A bench comprising former Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar have observed in the case – Rikhab Birani and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another-2025 INSC 512 as follows: “We are also constrained to impose costs of Rs 50,000/- on the State of Uttar Pradesh, as inspite of repeated judgements/orders of this Court, we are being flooded with cases of civil wrongs being made the subject matter of criminal proceedings by filing chargesheets etc.” The SC has expressed hope that in future, the Court may not have to come across such perverse and unjust orders from any High Court. The endeavour of High Courts should always be to uphold the rule of law and maintain institutional credibility. If the rule of law is not maintained or protected within the Court itself, then that would be end of the entire Justice Delivery System in the country. Judges at any level are expected to work efficiently, discharge their duties diligently and always strive hard to fulfill their Constitutional oath.