LexStreakRead free →
Supreme Court of India· 08 August 2025

Does correcting a High Court order interfere with the Chief Justice's power over the roster?

M/S. SHIKHAR CHEMICALS v. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR
2025 INSC 945
Coram: J.B. Pardiwala; R. Mahadevan
Full text of the Supreme Court of India's judgmentChecked against the originalFree to read
🔖 Save this judgment📬 Get today's judgments
View the original judgment PDFFree to read. To download it — or the LexStreak typeset copy with the headnote and Points of Law — create an account; downloads are part of the Pro plan.
Headnote

Constitution of India — Art. 136 — Institutional dignity — Corrective intervention — Judicial strictures — Held: Even while acting under its appellate jurisdiction under Article 136, this Court bears a constitutional responsibility to intervene where matters cross the threshold and the dignity of the institution is imperiled; the earlier directions were issued to protect the honour and dignity of the judiciary as a whole and not to cast aspersions on the Judge concerned. (¶4, 6) Constitution of India — Master of the roster — Administrative power of the Chief Justice — Corrective steps — Held further: The Chief Justice of a High Court is the master of the roster, and the Court's observations do not interfere with that administrative power; but when matters raise institutional concerns affecting the rule of law, this Court may be compelled to step in and take corrective steps. (¶9) Constitution of India — Art. 136 — Deference to the Chief Justice of India — Deletion of directions — Held further: In due deference to the written request of the Chief Justice of India, paragraphs 25 and 26 of the order dated 4th August 2025 are deleted, leaving it to the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court to look into the matter. Special Leave Petition disposed of. (¶7, 8)

The questions this judgment answers
1

Why did the Court delete paragraphs 25 and 26 of its earlier order?

In due deference to a written request from the Chief Justice of India, the Court deleted the two paragraphs, clarifying that its intention had never been to embarrass or cast aspersions on the Judge concerned.

2

Does correcting a High Court order interfere with the Chief Justice's power over the roster?

No. The Chief Justice of a High Court is master of the roster, and the Court's directions do not interfere with that administrative power; but institutional concerns affecting the rule of law may compel the Court to take corrective steps.

3

On what basis did the Court justify intervening under Article 136?

When matters cross the threshold and the dignity of the institution is imperiled, it is the Court's constitutional responsibility to intervene even under its appellate jurisdiction, to maintain the authority of the judiciary as a whole.

Prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment.

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

LexStreak turns the Supreme Court's output into a five-minute daily read for advocates — plain-language headnotes, the questions each judgment settles, and the full text when you need it.

🔖Save judgments into folders you actually use
📚A daily feed curated to your practice areas
🔥A reading streak, and your place on the Bar leaderboard
Create my free account

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

Full judgment
1.

We have received an undated letter from Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India requesting us to reconsider the directions issued by us in Paras 25 and 26 respectively of our order dated 04th August, 2025 passed in Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 11445 of 2025.

2.

In such circumstances, referred to above, we directed the Registry to re-notify the main matter for the purpose of considering the request made by Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India. Accordingly, the matter has been renotified today.

3.

By our order dated 4th August, 2025, we set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court of Allahabad and remanded the matter to the High Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law. While partly 2 allowing SLP (Crl.) No. 11445 of 2025, we observed the following:-

“22. In the result, we partly allow this petition and set aside the impugned order passed by the High Court. We remand the matter to the High Court for fresh consideration of the Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.2507 of 2024. The quashing petition shall be reheard on its own merits keeping in mind the dictum laid in the two decisions of this Court referred to above. 23. We request the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of the High Court of Allahabad to assign this matter to any other Judge of the High Court as he may deem fit. 24. The Chief Justice of High Court shall immediately withdraw the present criminal determination from the concerned Judge. 25. The Chief Justice shall make the concerned judge sit in a Division Bench with a seasoned senior judge of the High Court. 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 to be made to sit as a single judge, he shall not be assigned any criminal determination. 27. We have been constrained to issue directions as contained in Paras 22, 23, 24, 25 and 26 respectively, referred to above, keeping in mind that the impugned order is not the only erroneous order of the concerned Judge that we have looked into for the first time. Many such erroneous orders have been looked into by us over a period of time.” 3

4.

At the outset, we must clarify that our intention was not to cause embarrassment or cast aspersions on the concerned Judge. We would not even think of doing so. 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 when 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. At the cost of repetition, we reproduce para 27 as under:-

“27. We have been constrained to issue directions as contained in Paras 22, 23, 24, 25 and 26 respectively, referred to above, keeping in mind that the impugned order is not the only erroneous order of the concerned Judge that we have looked into for the first time. Many such erroneous orders have been looked into by us over a period of time.”

5.

Similarly, whenever we come across legally unimpeachable orders and orders that have ensured complete justice to the litigants, we have always taken the opportunity to record our appreciation for the Judges of the High Courts. The High Courts are not separate islands that can be disassociated from this Institution 4 and we reiterate that whatever was said in our 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 reinforcing the faith that is reposed in us.

6.

It is not just a matter of error or mistake committed by the Judge concerned in appreciating the legal points or facts. We were concerned about the appropriate direction to be issued in the interest of justice and with a view to protecting the honour and dignity of the institution. The litigants in this country approach different courts of law to seek justice. For 90% of the 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.

7.

In any view of the matter, since a request has been made in writing by Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India, and in due deference to the same, we hereby delete paras 25 and 26 respectively from our order dated 4th August, 2025. The order be corrected accordingly. 5

8.

While we are deleting paras 25 and 26 respectively from our order dated 04th August, 2025, we leave it to the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court to look into the matter.

9.

We fully acknowledge that the Chief Justice of a High Court is the master of the roster. But, as observed above, our directions are absolutely not interfering with the administrative power of the Chief Justice of the High Court. When matters raise institutional concerns affecting the rule of law, this Court may be compelled to step in and take corrective steps.

10.

Recently, a Bench comprising former Chief Justice of India Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar observed in Rikhab Birani & Anr. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. reported in 2025 INSC 512, as follows :-

“We are also constrained to impose costs of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) on the State of Uttar Pradesh as in spite of repeated judgments/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.”

11.

We hope that in future, we may not have to come across such perverse and unjust orders from any High Court. The endeavour of the High Courts should always be 6 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 the end of the entire justice delivery system in the country.

12.

Judges at any level are expected to work efficiently, discharge their duties diligently and always strive hard to fulfill their constitutional oath.

13.

With the aforesaid, we dispose of the Special Leave Petition.

14.

The Registry is directed to forward one copy of this order at the earliest to Hon’ble the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court. …………………………………………J (J.B. PARDIWALA) …………………………………………J (R. MAHADEVAN)

NEW DELHI

8TH AUGUST, 2025.

What the Court decided this week

Does an earnest money shortfall vitiate an auction under the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002?

2026 INSC 909 · Supreme Court of India

Does the open ballot in Council of States elections take away an elector’s right to vote?

2023 INSC 302 · Supreme Court of India

Can the NGT order rehabilitation of a site under Section 15 of the NGT Act?

2026 INSC 910 · Supreme Court of India

The Supreme Court decides something every day. Read one a day.

A free account gets you the day's judgments in your practice areas, a reading streak, and folders to keep what matters.

Start reading free
Source: Supreme Court of India. Reproduced for open access to public legal records, as issued — we add no masking of our own.
Headnote and questions prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk · Report an error · Privacy