2025 INSC 945 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

EXTRAORDINARY APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.11445/2025

M/S. SHIKHAR CHEMICALS Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR. Respondent(s)

O R D E R

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 04

th

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 re-

notified today.

3.By our order dated 4

th

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 4

th

August,

2025. The order be corrected accordingly.

5

8.While we are deleting paras 25 and 26 respectively

from our order dated 04

th

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.