'Black Day' In Allahabad High Court History: Judge Recuses From Hearing Bail Matters After Parties Attempt To Approach Him

Justice Krishan Pahal of the Allahabad High Court on Thursday described alleged efforts by litigating parties to secure access to and approach him in pending bail matters as a "black day in the history of this Court", holding that such conduct strikes at the very heart of judicial independence.

Justice Pahal consequently recused himself from hearing over 75 connected bail applications and directed that they be placed before the Chief Justice so that the matters could be assigned to another Bench.

At the outset, the bench recorded its "profound anguish" and "an abiding sense of institutional responsibility", while terming the episode "a black day in the history of this Court."

It observed that public confidence in the judiciary rests on the belief that justice is administered impartially, fearlessly and without any extraneous influence.

"Any attempt, howsoever subtle or clandestine, to interfere with or influence the judicial decision-making process constitutes a direct assault upon the majesty of the Rule of Law", the bench added.

The Bench noted that all the bail matters had already been heard and orders were likely to be delivered later. However, it was recorded that the litigating parties made efforts to secure access to him and approach him.

According to the Court, allowing such conduct to go unnoticed would strike at the heart of judicial independence and erode public confidence in the purity of the adjudicatory process.

The Court further observed that, if an order were ultimately passed in favour of a party, it could give rise to an “unwarranted but damaging inference” that the outcome was the result of extraneous influence rather than an impartial judicial determination.

It said the institution's reputation, painstakingly built over generations, could not be exposed to such avoidable suspicion.

Reiterating that justice must not only be done but must also “manifestly and unquestionably appear to have been done”, the Court remarked that any attempt by a litigant or counsel to establish an extra-judicial channel of communication with a Judge in relation to a pending matter is wholly incompatible with the ethics of the legal profession and the constitutional values underpinning an independent judiciary.

It described such conduct as “an affront to judicial propriety” and “utterly intolerable in the precincts of a High Court”.

Opining that it would be wholly inappropriate to proceed further with the matters, the Bench recused itself "to preserve the dignity of the institution, protect the purity of the judicial process, and eliminate even the faintest apprehension regarding the impartiality of the adjudication."

It directed that all the matters be placed before the Chief Justice for assignment to an appropriate Bench.

However, before parting with the matter, the Court stressed that judicial independence is not merely a privilege of judges but a constitutional guarantee owed to every citizen.

It added that any practice calculated to undermine that independence, or even create an impression that judicial orders may be influenced through private approaches, is “a menace to the administration of justice" and deserves "the strongest institutional condemnation”.

Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 497