'Black Day for Court': Allahabad HC Judge Recuses After Alleged Attempt to Influence Bail Cases

The Allahabad High Court judge, Justice Krishan Pahal, on Thursday recused himself from a batch of 65 connected bail applications, recording that the litigating parties had allegedly attempted to approach him while the matters were awaiting judgment.

Describing the episode as "a black day in the history of this court," the judge observed that the incident struck at the very foundation of judicial independence and risked eroding public confidence in the institution.

"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," Justice Pahal observed.

Court noted that all the connected bail matters had been fixed for final hearing and were heard on the day, with orders likely to be delivered later. It was after the hearing, the order records, that efforts were allegedly made by litigating parties to secure access to and approach the Presiding Judge.

Why did the Allahabad High Court judge recuse from the bail matters?

Court said it could not ignore any attempt to establish an extra-judicial channel of communication with a judge in relation to pending proceedings.

According to the order, permitting such conduct to go unnoticed would strike at the heart of judicial independence and diminish public faith in the purity of the adjudicatory process.

The judge further observed that the situation became even more serious because, if an order were ultimately passed in favour of the party whose case appeared to have merit during the hearing, the decision, regardless of its legal correctness, could be viewed as the result of outside influence rather than an impartial judicial determination.

"The reputation of the institution, painstakingly built over generations, cannot be exposed to such avoidable suspicion," the court said.

What did the high court say about judicial independence?

Court reiterated the settled principle that justice must not only be done but must also appear to have been done.

It observed that any attempt by a litigant or counsel to privately communicate with a judge regarding a pending matter is wholly incompatible with the ethics of the legal profession and with the constitutional values that safeguard an independent judiciary. Such conduct, the court added, amounts to an affront to judicial propriety and is "utterly intolerable" within the precincts of a high court.

To preserve the dignity of the institution, protect the purity of the judicial process and remove even the slightest apprehension regarding the fairness of the adjudication, Justice Pahal held that it would be inappropriate to continue hearing the matters and recused himself from all the connected bail applications.

Court directed that the cases be placed before the chief justice for assignment to an appropriate bench. It also ordered that the matters be listed before another bench, and not before the present one, on August 7, if possible after obtaining the necessary nomination.

Before concluding, court emphasised that judicial independence is not merely a privilege enjoyed by judges but a constitutional guarantee available to every citizen. It warned that any practice intended to undermine that independence, or even create an impression that judicial orders can be influenced through private approaches, is "a menace to the administration of justice" and deserves the strongest institutional condemnation.

Case Title: Bhola Prasad vs. State of U.P. and 64 other connected matters

Order Date: July 30, 2026

Bench: Justice Krishan Pahal