Supreme Court’s Adverse Observations on Allahabad High Court Judge: Oudh Bar Association Intervenes

Background of the Controversy

A recent development has triggered intense debate within the legal fraternity. The Oudh Bar Association, an institution with a long and respected legacy, has formally written to the Chief Justice of India, Hon’ble Mr Justice Surya Kant, objecting to certain strong remarks made by the Supreme Court against a sitting Judge of the Allahabad High Court. The communication was reported by “Bar and Bench” and arises out of the decision in Chetram Verma v. State of UP 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 141.

In this matter, a Bench of the Supreme Court comprising Hon’ble Mr Justice JB Pardiwala and Hon’ble Mr Justice KV Viswanathan set aside a bail order passed by the Allahabad High Court in a dowry death case. While overturning the order, the Supreme Court made critical observations directed at Hon’ble Mr Justice Pankaj Bhatia of the Allahabad High Court, who had originally granted bail.

Following these remarks, Justice Pankaj Bhatia recused himself from dealing with bail matters, specifically requesting that bail applications not be allotted to him in the future. He observed that the comments in the Supreme Court judgment had a “demoralizing and chilling effect” on him, especially the observations contained in paragraphs 4 and 29 of the decision.

The controversy thus centers not merely on the correctness of the bail order, but on the tone, character, and impact of the Supreme Court’s remarks on the independence and morale of High Court Judges.

The Supreme Court’s Order and Its Aftermath

The Impugned Bail Order and Appeal

The order that led to the present situation was passed on 10 October 2025 by Justice Pankaj Bhatia in a dowry death case, granting bail to the accused. This order was later challenged before the Supreme Court by Chetram Verma, resulting in the judgment dated 09 February 2026 in Crl. Appeal No.770/2026 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.19237/2025.

In its decision dated 09-02-2026, the Supreme Court not only interfered with and set aside the bail order but also made pointed comments concerning the approach and reasoning of the High Court. These remarks are what the Oudh Bar Association terms “stigmatic” and “demoralising,” alleging that they have had an adverse psychological impact on the Judge concerned, as well as a broader chilling effect on other members of the judiciary.

Justice Pankaj Bhatia, in his subsequent order of recusal from bail matters, acknowledged that no Judge can claim that all of his or her orders will always be upheld. However, he specifically noted that, although he understood that his bail order was vulnerable to interference on merits, the nature of the comments made by the Supreme Court—particularly in paragraphs 4 and 29—had significantly affected his morale and sense of judicial independence.

Reaction from the Oudh Bar Association

In response to these developments, the Oudh Bar Association addressed a detailed representation to the Chief Justice of India. The letter was signed by Pt S Chandra, President of the Oudh Bar Association of the High Court at Lucknow, and Lalit Kishore Tiwari, its General Secretary.

The Association, established in 1901, emphasized its historical role in defending the rights and liberties of the poor, oppressed, and marginalized sections of society. It described itself as a crucial link between these vulnerable groups and the Bench that delivers justice to them. At the same time, the Association stressed its responsibility to safeguard the dignity, independence, and working environment of members of the legal profession and the judiciary.

The letter asserts that, as a body committed to justice, the Oudh Bar Association cannot remain passive when lawyers or Judges—described metaphorically as “soldiers in black robes”—are perceived to be unfairly targeted or demoralized by institutional actions or comments.

Concerns Raised by the Oudh Bar Association

Judicial Independence and Psychological Impact

The Association’s letter draws attention to the larger context in which such remarks operate. It acknowledges that the Supreme Court, while exercising its appellate jurisdiction, is fully empowered to correct erroneous judgments.