The Allahabad High Court is facing a significant controversy as its judges appear to be at odds with the Supreme Court over the handling of cases involving judges and criminal matters. This disagreement has escalated into a major point of contention within the higher judiciary.

The issue began with a Supreme Court order that effectively barred a specific Allahabad High Court judge from hearing criminal cases. This directive stemmed from the Supreme Court's strong disapproval of the judge's handling of a Special Leave Petition (SLP). The SLP challenged a High Court order that permitted criminal proceedings to continue in a case that the Supreme Court believed should have been handled as a civil matter. Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, presiding over the case, overturned the Allahabad High Court's decision and issued a sharp rebuke of the judge's reasoning.

The Supreme Court specifically criticized Paragraph 12 of the High Court's judgment, where the judge suggested that directing the complainant to pursue a civil remedy would be unfair due to the potential for extended litigation and additional financial burdens. The High Court judge had stated that pursuing a civil suit would "take years" and require the complainant to "put more money to pursue the litigation," which the judge felt would be a "travesty of justice". Justice Pardiwala of the Supreme Court found this reasoning deeply troubling.

In response to the High Court's handling of the case, the Supreme Court not only set aside the order but also directed the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court to reassign the case to a different judge. Furthermore, the Supreme Court mandated that the judge in question be immediately relieved of all criminal jurisdiction. The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan, decided to take the unprecedented step of removing criminal matters from the judge's roster, clarifying that the judge would not be assigned such cases until retirement. The bench further directed that the judge should sit in a division bench with a seasoned senior judge.

This decision by the Supreme Court has ignited a debate about the role and limitations of judicial intervention. Some legal experts argue that the Supreme Court's actions are necessary to maintain the integrity of the judicial system and ensure that cases are handled fairly and impartially. Others express concern that such interventions could undermine the independence of the High Court and create a chilling effect on judicial decision-making.

The controversy also highlights the ongoing challenges within the Indian judicial system, including delays in civil proceedings and the potential for misuse of criminal proceedings for civil disputes. The Supreme Court's intervention underscores the need for reforms to address these systemic issues and ensure that justice is accessible and efficient for all citizens.

This is not the first time an Allahabad High Court judge has faced scrutiny. In March 2025, there were calls for Supreme Court action against an Allahabad High Court judge following public outrage over a case involving an alleged attempted rape. In that instance, the judge downgraded charges against an accused, sparking widespread condemnation from lawyers, political leaders, and the public.