Justice Prashant Kumar to sit in Allahabad HC's division bench; to hear civil matters
A bench of the Supreme Court, while passing an order on August 4 in paragraph 24 of its order, had instructed the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court to "immediately withdraw the present criminal determination" from Justice Kumar.
Later on, a letter of the Chief Justice of India, the same bench of the apex court considered the matter and deleted critical remarks against Justice Kumar and also the direction that he not be assigned any criminal matters till he demits office.
This order, especially the direction for the removal of criminal law work from Justice Kumar until his retirement, drew criticism from within both the Supreme Court and the Allahabad High Court.
A number of judges of the high court also wrote to the Chief Justice of Allahabad, urging him to convene a full court meeting and defy the Supreme Court's directives against Justice Kumar. Interestingly, the letter was authored by Justice Arindam Sinha, who will now sit with Justice Kumar as senior judge according to the new roster.
In its August 4 order, the Supreme Court, while hearing a special leave petition, had strongly criticised Justice Kumar's reasoning and had expressed shock at his conclusion that civil disputes could be pursued through criminal prosecution because civil suits "take years to conclude".
Re-hearing the matter on the request of the CJI on August 8, the division bench then clarified that it had no intention to "cause embarrassment or cast aspersions on the concerned judge" and reiterated that the judiciary must protect its institutional dignity.
Although the division bench of the apex court deleted its earlier directions in paragraphs 25 and 26 of the August 4 order, it reaffirmed that the judiciary must step in when the rule of law is undermined.
"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," the top court had said, potentially leaving the application of paragraph 24 to the discretion of the Chief Justice of the High Court.
Now, according to the new roster, the division bench comprising Justice Sinha and Justice Kumar will hear the civil matters pertaining to family court appeals and the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 apart from miscellaneous matters.
This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
Dharmasthala secret burials: BJP MLAs seek interim report, allege bid to defame Hindu religious site
BJP MLAs on Tuesday asked the Karnataka Government to release an interim report on the Dharmasthala secret burials case, with one of them alleging a continuous effort to defame a Hindu religious site under the pretext of the ongoing investigation. Raising the issue during Zero Hour in the Assembly, BJP MLA V Sunil Kumar said, 'If we look at posts on social media platforms and statements issued by some people, it is clear that Dharmasthala is the target.' 'While the whistleblower in the case had identified five to six spots where bodies were allegedly buried, today they have exhumed around 15 to 16 locations,' the MLA said. 'We have learnt that, prima facie, nothing was found.' Urging the Government to put an end to rumours surrounding the case, Kumar said the Special Investigation Team (SIT) cannot go around digging up any number of sites just because someone comes and complains. The SIT on Tuesday inspected the 13th spot identified by the whistleblower, a former sanitation worker in the temple town. Till date, the SIT has recovered remains of two skeletons. 'Action should be initiated against those making false claims about the temple town. The home minister should release a statement regarding the progress of the investigation (by the SIT),' MLA Kumar said. Home Minister G Parameshwara then informed the House that the investigation was progressing. 'After the probe reaches a stage, the SIT will submit a report,' he said, recalling that the SIT was set up on July 19 to investigate a police complaint filed by the whistleblower. BJP MLA Suresh Kumar said that though Dakshina Kannada district-in-charge minister Dinesh Gundu Rao had said that the district police were capable of investigating the case, it was handed over to the SIT due to demands from Left groups. Rao objected to the claim, saying that several groups had petitioned seeking an investigation. 'We are unbiased. We are not supporting anyone. We only want to bring out the truth,' the minister said. Parameshwara, meanwhile, said that until the SIT submitted its report, nothing about the investigation could be discussed in the Assembly. However, BJP legislators sought a discussion on the issue and demanded the home minister ask for an interim report from the SIT.
NDTV
an hour ago
- NDTV
After Top Court's Stray Dog Order For Delhi, Madras High Court's Big Hint
The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court on Tuesday said it would consider directing the Tamil Nadu government to implement in the state the Supreme Court's order on managing street dogs in Delhi. A Bench was hearing and disposing of a batch of petitions relating to stray animals — one on stray cattle, another on street dogs in general, and a third on the menace of dogs inside a temple that had allegedly bitten devotees, causing injuries and raising fears of rabies. During the hearing, petitioners submitted alarming data, claiming that Tamil Nadu had already recorded 3.67 lakh dog bites and 20 deaths due to dog-bite-related rabies this year alone. The judges said they would issue combined formal orders after studying the Supreme Court's detailed guidelines. The possible directive has sparked mixed reactions. Animal welfare activists expressed concern over the state's lack of infrastructure, manpower, and veterinary expertise to handle such a large street dog population. "Dogs have equal rights to live in this world," one activist said, adding that a poorly implemented crackdown could leave thousands of dogs neglected or starving. They urged the court instead to ensure that the state rigorously enforces the Animal Birth Control (ABC) programme, which focuses on sterilisation and vaccination as humane solutions. On the other hand, many residents and civic activists welcomed the move, stressing that human life must come first. They argued that the rising number of fatal and non-fatal dog attacks called for immediate, decisive intervention. "Lives should not be lost to dog bites in this day and age," one petitioner said, pointing to the absence of coordinated rabies control measures in several districts. The court's reference to the Supreme Court's Delhi order suggests that Tamil Nadu could soon see new, court-mandated protocols for street dog management — potentially affecting everything from municipal responsibility and sterilisation drives to shelter management and public awareness campaigns. The Bench is expected to issue its final directions after reviewing the top court's ruling, setting the stage for a state-wide policy on balancing public safety and animal rights.
Economic Times
an hour ago
- Economic Times
Summons to lawyers: SC reserves verdict
Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday reserved its judgement in a suo motu case initiated by it to consider the issue of probe agencies summoning lawyers who provide legal advice to accused involved in criminal suo motu was initiated by the top court after it had issued summons to two senior lawyers for rendering legal advice to their clients. A three-member bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai reserved its verdict after briefly hearing arguments of Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and other lawyers. "Lawyers need to be protected. Provisions are already there. But if they are party to the commission of crime, (they are not entitled to protection)," Mehta submitted. The bench said that it has already made it clear that no protection can be extended to such the last hearing, Supreme Court Bar Association President Vikas Singh had suggested that the guidelines issued by the ED to its officers should be adopted by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and other investigating agencies as well. Singh had further suggested that for CBI and state police, there should be permission from the Superintendent of Police for issuance of summons to lawyers. He had further proposed that summons to a lawyer should be sent only after the concerned judicial magistrate clears the development took place during the resumed hearing of a suo motu case initiated by the SC on summons issued by ED to two senior advocates - Arvind Datar and Pratap Venugopal - in the course of ED's investigation into the grant of over 22.7 million Employee Stock Option Plans, valued at more than ₹250 crore, by Care Health Insurance to former Religare Enterprises chairperson Rashmi Saluja.
