Direct Assault On Majesty Of Rule Of Law: Allahabad High Court Judge Recuses From Hearing Bail Pleas After Parties Try To Approach Him

While dealing with the bunch of Bail Application, the Allahabad High Court has observed that any attempt, whether 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.

While condemning the conduct, the Bench said that the episode marked a "black day" in the history of the Court.

The Bench of Justice Krishan Pahal observed, "This Court records, with profound anguish and an abiding sense of institutional responsibility, that the present episode marks a black day in the history of this Court. The very edifice of the judicial institution rests upon the unwavering confidence of the public 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."

Advocate Aditya Gupta appeared for the Applicant.

Few connected bail applications were listed before the Single Bench of the High Court for final hearing. During the course of hearing, the Court had fixed all the matters to be heard finally and order might have been delivered at a later point of time.

The Court said that efforts were made by the litigating parties to secure access to and approach the Presiding Judge. It was remakred that such conduct, if permitted to pass unnoticed, strikes at the very heart of judicial independence and erodes public confidence in the purity of the adjudicatory process.

The Court observed that the edifice of the judicial system rested entirely upon the unwavering confidence of the public that justice was administered fearlessly, impartially, and without extraneous influence. It was held that any attempt, whether subtle or clandestine, to interfere with the judicial decision-making process constituted a direct assault upon the majesty of the Rule of Law.

It was observed, "The sanctity of judicial proceedings does not merely require that justice be done; it demands that justice must manifestly and unquestionably appear to have been done. 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 governing the legal profession and the constitutional values underpinning an independent judiciary. Such an approach is an affront to judicial propriety and is utterly intolerable in the precincts of a High Court...This Court, therefore, considers it wholly inappropriate to proceed further with the matters."

The Court further noted that if an order were ultimately passed in favor of a party whose case found prima facie acceptance, such an order—irrespective of its legal correctness and intrinsic merit—would remain susceptible to a damaging and unwarranted inference of extraneous inducement.

Reaffirming the fundamental rule of natural justice that "justice must not only be done, but must manifestly and unquestionably appear to have been done," the Bench observed that establishing extra-judicial channels of communication was an affront to judicial propriety and wholly incompatible with legal ethics and constitutional values.

The Bench recused itself from further hearing these bail application.

The main bail application, with all connected bail applications, were ordered to be released from the roster of the Presiding Judge.

The Court directed the Registry to list the matters before the nominated Bench, if possible, on August 7, 2026, in the daily cause list.

Cause Title: Bhola Prasad v. State of U.P. [Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. - 418 of 2026]

Appearances:

Applicant: Advocate Aditya Gupta

Click here to read/download the Order