Lucknow Bench, Allahabhad High Court.
The Oudh Bar Association has written to Chief Justice of India Surya Kant expressing serious concern over what it described as “stigmatic and demoralising” remarks made by the Supreme Court against a judge of the Allahabad High Court.
The controversy stems from a recent Supreme Court ruling in Chetram Verma v. State of UP, where a Bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and KV Viswanathan set aside a bail order granted by the High Court in a dowry death case, terming it “one of the most shocking and disappointing” orders it had encountered.
The Bar body has now urged judicial restraint, warning that strong personal observations against individual judges could adversely impact judicial morale and institutional functioning.
READ: Supreme Court Notifies 2026 Guidelines for Senior Advocate Designation, Scraps Points System
Bar Seeks Judicial Restraint from Apex Court
Adv S. Chandra, President, Oudh Bar Association.
In its February 18 letter, the Association requested the CJI to advise Supreme Court judges to refrain from making adverse personal remarks while exercising appellate jurisdiction. While acknowledging the power of higher courts to overturn decisions, the Bar emphasised that remarks questioning a judge’s competence can have a chilling effect.
The letter argued that such observations extend beyond the case at hand and may affect the confidence and independence of High Court judges, especially those functioning under immense workload pressures.
READ: Family Court Judge Moves Supreme Court Over Delhi High Court’s Personal Criticism
Judge Recuses, Cites ‘Chilling Effect’
Adv Lalit Kishor Tiwari, Oudh Bar Association.
Following the Supreme Court’s criticism, Justice Pankaj Bhatia of the Allahabad High Court recused himself from hearing a bail matter and requested that such cases not be assigned to him in future. He reportedly noted that the remarks had a “demoralising and chilling effect.”
The Bar’s letter also highlighted the heavy pendency burden faced by the Allahabad High Court, which operates from Lucknow and Prayagraj, and currently functions below its sanctioned strength. It warned that strong appellate criticism may further strain judges already under mounting pressure.
READ: Google Accused of Infringing Patents: Delhi High Court Refers Gemini & Android Case to Mediation
Backdrop: Dowry Death Case and Statutory Presumption
Justice Pankaj Bhatia of Lucknow Bench, Allahabad High Court had delivered the bail order which has been later set aside by the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court ruling arose from an FIR filed by the father of a 22-year-old woman who died within three months of marriage. The post-mortem cited asphyxia due to strangulation.
While the High Court had granted bail citing custody period and absence of criminal antecedents, the Supreme Court found that the seriousness of the offence and the statutory presumption under Section 118 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 had been overlooked.
The Bar Association has now sought expunction of the critical remarks made in the February 9 judgment to preserve judicial independence and institutional harmony.
READ: Supreme Court Directs High Courts to Report on 30% Women Representation in Bar Associations
READ: Oudh Bar Association’s Letter to the CJI Suryakant
READ: Supreme Court Order in Chetram Verma vs State of UP
READ: Allahabad High Court’s Bail Order in Devraj Verma vs State of UP
