The Supreme Court of India has decided to rehear a case after its initial order, which criticized an Allahabad High Court judge's understanding of criminal law, triggered a wave of controversy. The initial order also permanently removed the judge from handling criminal cases. This move by the Supreme Court comes after serious reservations were expressed regarding the tone and substance of the August 4 order, which was issued by Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan. The criticism was directed towards the High Court judge and the apparent infringement upon the authority of the High Court Chief Justice to allocate cases to judges.

The Chief Justice of India (CJI), B.R. Gavai, along with senior judges, recognized the gravity of the situation. Concerns were raised that the Supreme Court's order encroached upon the High Court Chief Justice's prerogative in preparing the roster for assigning cases to judges. The Supreme Court has consistently maintained that the High Court Chief Justice has exclusive and non-justiciable powers to form benches and allocate work to judges.

Following discussions with his colleagues, the CJI met with Justice Pardiwala and conveyed the need to rectify the order, particularly concerning the remarks against the High Court judge and the decision to remove him from criminal case assignments. Subsequently, Justice Pardiwala directed the registry to relist the case, "Sikhar Chemicals vs. Uttar Pradesh," for a fresh hearing. The case had initially been disposed of on August 4, and the Supreme Court's website did not initially specify the reasons for the rehearing.

In their August 4 order, Justices Pardiwala and Mahadevan instructed the Allahabad High Court Chief Justice to "immediately withdraw the present criminal determination from the judge concerned" and to ensure the judge would "sit in a division bench with a seasoned senior judge". The bench further directed that the judge should not be assigned any criminal cases until he leaves office. The Supreme Court bench expressed strong disapproval, stating that the judge had not only "cut a sorry figure for himself but has made a mockery of justice". The Supreme Court wondered whether such orders are passed on some extraneous considerations or it is sheer ignorance of law.

The Supreme Court's decision to rehear the case highlights the importance of maintaining the independence of the judiciary and respecting the established protocols for case allocation within the High Courts. The court's intervention seeks to address concerns about overreach and ensure that the High Court Chief Justice's authority remains intact. This situation also underscores the necessity for judicial consistency and the avoidance of conflicting orders, which can undermine the credibility of the judiciary. The Supreme Court has in the past emphasized that if a judge dissents from a previous ruling, they must provide a clear explanation for their differing opinion.