Legal Services India - Law Articles is a Treasure House of Legal Knowledge and information, the law resources is an ever growing database of authentic legal information.
Legal Services India

» Home
Tuesday, March 17, 2026

Oudh Bar Association Flags Concern About SC’s Remarks Against Allahabad HC Judge

Posted in: Supreme Court
Thu, Feb 26, 26, 04:38, 3 Weeks ago
star star star star star
0 out of 5 with 0 ratings
comments: 0 - hits: 29343
Oudh Bar raises concerns over Supreme Court remarks on Allahabad HC judge in Chetram Verma case, citing chilling effect on judiciary.

It definitely cannot be ever taken lightly by anyone that none other than the Oudh Bar Association which enjoys an impeccable reputation nationwide has written to the Chief Justice of India (CJI) Hon’ble Mr Justice Surya Kant raising grave concerns over stigmatic and demoralizing remarks made by the Supreme Court against Allahabad High Court Judges as pointed out in the “Bar and Bench” webportal. It must be mentioned that the Apex Court ruling that prompted the letter was passed in the case of Chetram Verma v. State of UP 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 141 where a Bench of Apex Court comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice JB Pardiwala and Hon’ble Mr Justice KV Viswanathan set aside a bail order by the Allahabad High Court in a dowry death case and made scathing remarks against the Allahabad High Court Judge – Hon’ble Mr Justice Pankaj Bhatia who recused himself from hearing a bail matter and requested that bail cases not be assigned to him in future, stating that certain observations had a demoralizing and chilling effect on him. He also pointed out that:
Although it is well known that there is no judge who can claim that his order has never been set aside or interfered with, I also feel from the perusal of the judgment of the Supreme Court that the bail order granting bail was apparently subject to interference.”

Adding more to it, he further said that:
However, the observations made by the Supreme Court in the Judgment, particularly in paras 4 and 29, have had a huge demoralising and chilling effect on me.” It must be laid bare that the development follows a February 9, 2026 judgment of the Apex Court in a case filed by Chetram Verma who challenged a bail order that had been granted by Justice Bhatia on October 10, 2025.

It must be noted that the Oudh Bar Association in its letter to the CJI Hon’ble Mr Justice Surya Kant drafted by Pt S Chandra who is President of Oudh Bar Association of High Court of Lucknow and Lalit Kishore Tiwari who is General Secretary of Oudh Bar Association of High Court of Lucknow points out stating that:
The Oudh Bar Association is our association working since 1901 and has actively participated in protection of rights and liberties of the poor, oppressed and Suppressed class. It’s the Oudh Bar Association which always portrays a role of a bridge between the Suppressed class and the benches who deliver justice to them. In working for the oppressed and suppressed class we are also aware about our rights and the rights of the members of the legal fraternity. It is the Oudh Bar Association which has taken initiative to stand for what is right and just, we also draw and interpret as to what is a fine line between what is just and reasonable. Working as a soldier of protecting rights and liberties, we cannot let any organization, institution or any machinery to oppresses the soldiers in black robes throughout the country. Any movement which would affect the rights and liberties of a lawyer would also not go unseen by the Oudh Bar Association, Lucknow.

My Lord, you are Head and Guardian of Indian Judiciary & Judicial System is growing in your able guidance across the India. Our judicial system moves on the parallel wheels propelled by the unwavering faith of the litigants strong enough in their belief of getting justice through impartial system manned by judges with maximum output working under already stressed mounting pressure of ever increasing pendency of cases wherein judges of high courts sometimes unfortunately made to feel the impact of unexpected remarks made by the Apex Court on judicial side in its appellate jurisdiction which is felt to be demoralising effect on their judicial mind adverse to the capacity a judge in the dispensation of justice. It has also been made it clear that criticize erroneous judgments but not stressed Judges but despite all such Settled views there is sometimes overreach by our Apex Court in passing remarks on the capability of judge under impugned order which has serious jolting psychological effect on his or her judicial mind.

The remarks by Supreme Court sitting in appellate Or extra ordinary jurisdiction on the order judgment passed by judges of High Court if stigmatic has chilling effect on the working capacity of a particular judge whose justice delivery capacity is unquestionably appreciated by the members of the Court Annexed Bar at large. The High Court of Uttar Pradesh sitting at Lucknow and at Prayagraj is functioning with less number of Judges against its actual capacity as such ever increasing pressure of mounting work load even of fresh cases which has cascading effect on the already stressed performance upto the hilt in the justice delivery system as such when any remark adverse to their capacity of sound judicial approach is bound to demoralise the particular as happened with Judge sitting at Lucknow in bail jurisdiction who unfortunately found himself under chilling effect of the remarks passed by the Apex Court under it appellate jurisdiction.

The Bar is the mother of the Bench and is best judge to assess the performance of every Judge in Justice delivery system running on two parallel wheels of Justice as such any remark by Apex Court adverse to the dignity of judge on judicial side has no doubt chilling effect not only on the particular Judge but on members of the Bar at large. Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed to your Lordship that kindly advise to all accompanying Hon’ble Judges to avoid adverse remark on the Hon’ble Judges of High Court, Uttar Pradesh while deciding the case in appellate jurisdiction and it is further prayed that your lordship may kindly be pleased to review and expunge the adverse remark in judgment and order dated 09-02-2026 passed in Crl.Appeal No.770/2026 arrising out of SLP (Crl.) No.19237/2025 against the Hon’ble Judge, to keep high the moral and working capacity of Hon’ble Judges at High Court of Uttar Pradesh for maintaining transparent, fearless and independent judicial system in the interest of Justice.”

In hindsight, it may be recalled that earlier also, the Apex Court Bench led by Hon’ble Mr Justice JB Pardiwala and also comprising Hon’ble Mr Justice Mahadevan had to modify its August 4, 2025 order to make Hon’ble Mr Justice Prashant Kumar of the Allahabad High Court to sit on a Division Bench with a seasoned senior Judge of the High Court and that the Chief Justice would not assign any criminal matters to him. It must be laid bare that the move follows very serious reservations expressed by the then CJI Hon’ble Mr Justice BR Gavai against the order and a letter signed by thirteen senior Judges of the Allahabad High Court calling to defy the Supreme Court’s order. It may be recalled that The Times of India had reported last year that the then CJI Hon’ble Mr Justice BR Gavai and several senior Judges had expressed serious reservations about the tone and tenor of the directions that had been issued by the Bench led by Hon’ble Mr Justice JB Pardiwala.

One fervently hopes that Hon’ble Mr Justice JB Pardiwala who is touted by some as the “most fearless judge” of Apex Court till date since independence speak out fearlessly as to why Uttar Pradesh which has maximum pending cases and maximum population has only one High Court Bench created 78 years ago at Lucknow so close to Allahabad and nowhere else even though Justice Jaswant Singh Commission headed by former Supreme Court Judge appointed by Centre itself recommended permanent seat of High Court Bench in West UP at Agra about 50 years ago yet not even a Circuit Bench created till date and Maharashtra which already had multiple High Court Benches at Bombay, Nagpur and Panaji was given one more at Aurangabad as recommended and now one more fifth High Court Bench created in Kolhapur for just few districts which started functioning from August 18, 2025 but for West UP with 30 districts and more than 10 crore people not even a single High Court Circuit Bench created till date! The moot question that crops up immediately in my mind on hearing this is: Why we see no democratic spirit in our country in the distribution of High Courts and High Court Benches and High Court Circuit Benches in different States and different regions in our country? The most germane question to ask here is: Who is masterminding such blind, brutal, baseless and blatant discrimination perpetrated in distribution of High Court Benches in different States and different regions?

It is absolutely most baffling rather gut wrenching to say more appropriately that both Supreme Court and Centre in last about 80 years of independence most inexplicably feel that Allahabad High Court which is biggest High Court in not only just India, in not only just Asia but also in whole world should have only one High Court bench so close to Allahabad at Lucknow and nowhere else which is the biggest national disgrace and lawless Bihar has not even a single High Court Bench nor Circuit Bench just like Orissa! Why only five elite States have multiple High Court Benches – MP, Karnataka, Maharashtra, West Bengal and Assam? Why West UP which ideally should have separate High Court and separate Statehood due to its huge population and pending cases owing for majority of pending cases of UP which is highest for any region in India has not even a High Court Bench nor even a Circuit Bench to say the very least for so long? Why is Supreme Court and so called “most fearless Judges” like Hon’ble Mr Justice JB Paridwala sleeping on this? This key issue affects billions of litigants across so many States and regions which alone explains why 230th Report of Law Commission of India recommended creation of High Court Benches in different States yet after nearly 17 years gathering only dust!

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col (Retd) BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh

Legal Services India

Comments

There are no comments for this article.
Only authorized users can leave comments. Please sign in first, or register a free account.
Share
Sponsor
About Author
Sanjeev Sirohi Advocate
Member since Apr 19, 2018
Location: Meerut, UP
Following
User not following anyone yet.
You might also like
In the light of the latest judgment provided by the SC for commuting the death penalty of former pm Rajiv Gandhi’s assassins to life imprisonment on the ground of excessive wait on govt and President’s part to decide their whim pleas
Shanti Bhushan v Supreme Court of India through its Registrar and another in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 789 of 2018 (Arising out of Diary No. 12405 of 2018) refused pointblank to declare that the function of allocating cases and assigning benches should be exercised by the collegium of five senior Judges instead of the Chief Justice of India.
Coming straight to the nub of the matter, let me begin at the very beginning by first and foremost expressing my full and firm support to the growing perfectly justified demand that seeks chemical castration for child rapists
Justice KS Puttaswamy (Retd) and another v Union of India has upheld the validity of Aadhaar for availing government subsidies and benefits and for filing income tax returns! The lone dissenting Judge in this landmark case is Justice Dr DY Chandrachud. He differed entirely from the majority and struck down Section 139AA.
It is most reassuring, refreshing and re consoling to note that for the first time in at least my memory have I ever noticed a Chief Justice of India who even before assuming office outlined his priorities very clearly and courageously
Manohar Lal Sharma vs Narendra Damodardas Modi dismissed a string of petitions seeking an independent probe into the 2015 Rafale deal, for registration of FIR and Court-monitored investigation by CBI into corruption allegations in Rafale deal.
Judgement by the Supreme Court about energy conservation and infrastructure laws in the state of Himachal Pradesh.
In a major and significant development, the Supreme Court which is the highest court in India has for the second time designated 37 lawyers as Senior Advocates.
On 17th October 2018, the Cannabis Act came into force and Canada became the largest country in the world with a legal marijuana marketplace.
Why Only Lawyers Are Held Liable For Accepting Foreign Funding And Not Politicians? Why is it that under our Indian law only lawyers are held liable for accepting foreign funding and not politicians? Why politicians are mostly never held accountable for accepting foreign funding?
Finally Hindus Get The Right To Worship At Entire Disputed Land And Muslims Get 5 Acre In Ayodhya
I am a student at New Law College, Bharati Vidyapeeth University studying LLB. I am currently majoring in 3 yrs LLB Course from New Law College, and have started with my last year from July 2019.
230th report of Law Commission of India, it will certainly produce more diamonds like the Chief Justice of India designate Sharad Arvind Bobde who is most invaluable and even Kohinoor diamond stands just nowhere near him
Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court Of India vs Subhash Chandra Aggarwal the office of Chief Justice of India is a public authority under the Right to Information Act
Sections 126 to l29 deal with the privilege that is attached to Professional Communications between the legal advisors and their clients. Section 126 and 128 mention the circumstances under which the legal advisor can give evidence of such professional communication.
National Federation Of Societies For Fast Justice & Anr. Vs. UOI Notifications for establishing the Gram Nyayalayas to issue the same within four weeks.. It was considering a PIL filed by National Federation Of Societies For Fast Justice.
Madhuri Jajoo vs. Manoj Jajoo has allowed the first petition for divorce by mutual consent, through the virtual hearing system.
Reepak Kansal vs. Secretary-General, Supreme Court Of India has taken a stern view of the increasing tendency to blame the Registry for listing some cases more swiftly as compared to others.
upheld the Shebait rights of the erstwhile royals of Travancore in the administration, maintenance and management of Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple in Thiruvananthapuram.
Justice R Banumathi had assumed the role of a Supreme Court Judge on 13 August 2014. She is the sixth women to be a Judge of the Supreme Court of India
Judges cannot speak out even if they are humiliated. How long can the Supreme Court and the Judges suffer the humiliation heaped regularly?
Neelam Manmohan Attavar vs Manmohan Attavar that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution would not be maintainable in order to challenge an order which has been passed by the High Court in the exercise of its judicial powers.
Jugut Ram vs. Chhattisgarh the fact that a lathi is also capable of being used as a weapon of assault, does not make it a weapon of assault simpliciter.
Sagufa Ahmed vs. Upper Assam Plywood Products Pvt. Ltd the said order extended only the period of limitation and not the period upto which delay can be condoned in exercise of discretion conferred by the statute
the legendary Kesavananda Bharati whose plea to the Apex Court is considered the real reason behind the much acclaimed Basic Structure doctrine propounded in 1973
Amar Singh vs NCT Of Delhi conviction can be based on the testimony of a single eye witness so long he is found to be wholly reliable.
Madhya Pradesh vs. Bherulalthe governments taking for granted the period of limitation prescribed. In other words, it is high time and all the governments in our country both in the Centre and the States must now
Madhya Pradesh vs. Bherulal the governments taking for granted the period of limitation prescribed.
the manner in which Bombay High Court handled the Arnab Goswami case. A vacation Bench comprising of Justices Dr DY Chandrachud and Indira Banerjee of the Supreme Court is currently hearing the petition filed by Republic TV anchor Arnab Goswami
Indian Olympics Association vs. Kerala Olympic Association civil original jurisdiction dismissed Indian Olympics Association's (IOA) plea seeking transfer of a writ petition before Kerala High Court to Delhi High Court.
In Arnab's case, Justice Dr DY Chandrachud had minced no words to say that: There has to be a message to High Courts – Please exercise your jurisdiction to uphold personal liberty
It is most shocking, most disgusting and most disheartening to read that criminals are ruling the roost and making the headlines in UP time and again
Parveen vs. State of Haryana while setting aside an order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing the plea of a man in view of absence of his counsel has observed in clear, categorical
Madras Bar Association vs Union of India that exclusion of advocates in 10 out of 19 tribunals, for consideration as judicial members is contrary to the Supreme Court judgments in Union of India v. Madras Bar Association
Inderjeet Singh Sodhi vs Chairman, Punjab State Electricity Board the dismissal of special leave petition is of no consequence on the question of law. We all must bear it in mind from now on
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Zaixhu Xie the practice of pronouncing the final orders without reasoned judgments.
It cannot be denied by anyone that government is the biggest litigator in courts and is responsible to a large extent for the huge pending cases in different states all across the country. The top court is definitely not happy with the state of affairs and the lethargic and complacent motto of Sab Chalta Hain attitude of the governments in India.
Centre has finally decided to get its act together and constitute the All India Judicial Service (AIJS) about which we have been hearing since age
Prashant Dagajirao Patil vs. Vaibhav@Sonu Arun Pawar a High Court, while exercising bail jurisdiction cannot issue directions which will have a direct bearing upon the trial.
Commercial Taxes Officer, Circle-B, Bharatpur vs M/s Bhagat Singh in exercise of itsextraordinary appellate jurisdiction that a statute must be interpreted in a just, reasonable and sensible manner
Pravat Chandra Mohanty vs Odisha refused the plea seeking compounding of offences of two police officers accused in a custodial violence case.
Sessions Judge, Bhadrak in S.T. Case No.182/392 of 2014, acquitting the Respondents from charges under Sections 302/201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code IPC
Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. vs. M/S Navigant Technologies Pvt. Ltd. the period of limitation for filing the Petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act would commence from the date on which the signed copy of the award was made available to the parties.
Niranjan Hemchandra Sashittal and another v. Maharashtra in page 386 of the citation that: The quantum of bribe is immaterial for judging gravity of the offence under PC Act. Proceedings under PC Act cannot be quashed on the ground of delay in conclusion particularly where the accused adopted dilatory tactics.
The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting has proposed to introduce the Cinematograph (Amendment) Bill, 2021.The new proposal would amend the Cinematograph Act of 1952 to grant the Centre "revisionary powers" and allow it to "re-examine" films that have already been certified by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC).
I have not come across a single person in my life who has not complained of milk being not up to the mark and even in my own life I don't remember how many times my mother
Akhila Bharata Kshatriya Mahasabha v/s Karnataka barring installation of statues or construction of any structure in public roads, pavements, sideways and other public utility places.
Manohar Lal Sharma vs Union of India has made it clear that State won't get a free pass by mere mention of national security.
State of MP vs Ghisilal the civil courts has no jurisdiction to try suit relating to land which is subject-matter of ceiling proceedings, Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976.
Deserving cases in Supreme Court also don't get listed in time and keep pending for a long time and not so deserving cases get listed most promptly when backed by eminent law firms and senior lawyers
Top