Sign In
Notification
Font ResizerAa
  • Latest
    • Supreme Court
    • Madras High Court
    • Madurai Bench
  • Quick Recall
    • Arms Act
    • BNSS
    • BNS
    • BSA
    • Evidence
    • Drugs Act
    • Cr.P.C
    • IPC
    • N.I.Act
    • PMLA
    • NDPS
    • Corruption Laws
    • General
    • Passports Act
    • Pocso
    • MCOP
    • Writ
  • Acquittal
    • S.C
    • Madras High Court
  • 3 judge bench
  • Resources
    • Notes
      • Cr.P.C 1973
      • Crimes
    • Articles
      • P.G.Rajagopal (Judge Rtd)
      • Ad. Ramprakash Rajagopal
      • Ad. Karunanithi
      • Ad. Ravindran Raghunathan
      • Ad. James Raja
      • Ad. M.S.Parthiban
      • Ad. Rajavel
      • Ad. Azhar Basha
    • Digest
      • Monthly Digest
      • Weekly digest
      • Subject wise
    • Bare Acts
      • BSA 2023
      • BNS 2023
      • BNSS 2023
  • Must Read
  • Author’s note
  • E-Booklet
    • Legal words
  • About
    • Terms
    • Privacy policy
    • Cancellation & Refund Policy
    • Team
  • Civil
    • s. 91 cpc
  • My Bookmarks
Reading: Litigants come to court expecting the justice delivery system to function in accordance with law and not to obtain absurd or irrational orders
Share
Font ResizerAa
  • Latest
  • Acquittal
  • Digest
  • Resources
Search
  • Latest
    • Madras High Court
    • Madurai Bench
    • Supreme Court
  • Quick Recall
    • Evidence
    • Cr.P.C
    • IPC
    • N.I.Act
    • Pocso
    • PMLA
    • NDPS
    • Corruption Laws
    • General
    • Passports Act
  • Acquittal
    • S.C
    • Madras High Court
  • Digest
    • Monthly Digest
    • Weekly digest
  • Resources
    • Notes
    • Articles
  • 3 judge bench
  • Must have
  • Author’S Note
  • E-Booklet
  • Legal words
  • About
    • Terms
    • Privacy policy
    • Cancellation & Refund Policy
    • Team
  • Mobile APP
  • My Bookmarks

Get Notifications

Notification
Follow US
> Quick Recall> General> Litigants come to court expecting the justice delivery system to function in accordance with law and not to obtain absurd or irrational orders

Litigants come to court expecting the justice delivery system to function in accordance with law and not to obtain absurd or irrational orders

The Supreme Court reconsidered its August 4, 2025 order at the Chief Justice of India's request, specifically regarding directions concerning a High Court judge. The original order had remanded the case and imposed restrictions on the judge due to a history of erroneous rulings. While emphasizing its role in upholding judicial dignity and the rule of law, the Supreme Court deleted the contested paragraphs (25 and 26) in deference to the Chief Justice, leaving the matter to the Allahabad High Court's Chief Justice. The Court stressed the importance of High Courts maintaining institutional credibility and upholding the rule of law to preserve the justice delivery system.
section1 August 9, 2025 5 Min Read
Share
justice

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 allowing SLP (Crl.) No. 11445 of 2025, we observed the following:-

“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.”

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 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.

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.

M/s. Shikhar Chemicals Petitioner(s) versus The State Of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. Respondent(s) – Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.11445/2025 – 2025 INSC 945 – 8TH AUGUST, 2025 – Hon’ble Mr Justice J.B. PARDIWALA J and Hon’ble Mr Justice R. MAHADEVAN.

Shikhar chemicals vs. The State of U.P 375282025_2025-08-08Download

TAGGED:absurd ordersirrational ordersjusticeorders
SOURCES:https://www.sci.gov.in/view-pdf/?diary_no=375282025&type=j&order_date=2025-08-08&from=latest_judgements_order
Previous Article summoning new accused Settled: Under section 193 Cr.P.C the Court of Sessions has the power to summon a person as accused to stand trial even if he has not been charge-sheeted
Next Article suspension Suspension of sentence should be considered by the appellate court liberally in fixed-term sentence unless there are exceptional circumstances
Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Popular Study

dna

Since the DNA report points the possibility of another individual impregnated the victim than accused final report is quashed and re-investigation ordered with certain directions

Reshma Azath July 10, 2025
The Sessions Court has no power to sentence the accused to life without remission
Except the confession statement no other material available to implead the petitioner as accused hence NDPS case quashed
Witness did not name any person from the locality who had seen the incident and not a single witness from the locality was examined who had seen the incident
DON’T STRAY

About

Section1.in is all about the legal updates in Criminal and Corporate Laws. This website also gives opportunity to publish your (readers/users) articles subject to the condition of being edited (only if necessary) by the team of Advocates. Kindly send your articles to paperpageindia@gmail.com or WhatsApp to +919361570190.
  • Quick Links
  • Team
  • Terms
  • Cancellation Policy
  • Privacy Policy
  • My Bookmarks
  • Founder

section1.in is powered by Paperpage.             A product of © Paperpage Internet Services. All Rights Reserved. 

Subscribe Newsletter for free

Subscribe to our newsletter to get judgments instantly!

Check your inbox or spam folder to confirm your subscription.

ஓர்ந்துகண் ணோடாது இறைபுரிந்து யார்மாட்டும் தேர்ந்துசெய் வஃதே முறை [541].

_திருவள்ளுவர்
Welcome Back!

Sign in to your account

Username or Email Address
Password

Lost your password?