The Supreme Court (SC) has clarified that its earlier criticism of an Allahabad High Court (HC) judge was not intended to cause embarrassment or cast aspersions. Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan stated that their observations were aimed at safeguarding judicial integrity and maintaining the dignity and authority of the judiciary.

The clarification came after the SC took suo moto cognizance and deleted its previous directions against Justice Prashant Kumar of the Allahabad High Court, following a request from the Chief Justice of India (CJI). The initial order, dated August 4, 2025, had included strong adverse remarks, suggesting Justice Kumar should be kept off criminal rosters for allegedly encouraging criminal proceedings in a civil matter.

In the August 4 order, the Supreme Court bench had expressed disapproval of the High Court judge's handling of a case where a civil dispute was given a criminal dimension. The SC found fault with Justice Kumar for not recognizing the impropriety of allowing a criminal case for "criminal breach of trust" to be registered in what was essentially a civil dispute. The Supreme Court had initially requested the Chief Justice of the High Court of Allahabad to assign the matter to another judge. It had also suggested that the concerned judge sit in a Division Bench with a seasoned senior judge.

However, on August 8, 2025, the SC clarified that its intention was not to cause embarrassment or cast aspersions on the judge. The court emphasized that the judiciary is a single institution and the Supreme Court has a duty to uphold its dignity. The bench acknowledged the exclusive authority of a High Court Chief Justice as the 'master of the roster' and stated it was not interfering with the CJ's administrative powers. The SC reiterated its constitutional obligation to intervene when necessary, particularly when matters affect the rule of law.

The Supreme Court also addressed the increasing trend of civil disputes being converted into criminal cases, leading to the misuse of the criminal justice system. The bench referred to orders passed by former Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna, highlighting concerns about the Uttar Pradesh government. While deleting the specific paragraphs containing adverse remarks, the Court reiterated its duty to take corrective steps when the rule of law is affected and left it to the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court to look into the matter.

The bench expressed hope that it would not encounter such orders in the future. It emphasized that High Courts should always uphold the rule of law and maintain institutional credibility, as the justice delivery system depends on it. The Supreme Court also noted that it has consistently praised judges who deliver sound, well-reasoned judgments.