PRAYAGRAJ: Justice Prashant Kumar, at the centre of a controversy following Supreme Court’s Aug 4 directives that he not hear any criminal matter, will sit as part of an Allahabad high court division bench headed by a senior judge, according to the changed roster announced by Allahabad high court Monday. The new roster came into effect Monday.The roster change was effected after an SC division bench did not delete a key paragraph (para 24) that instructed the high court chief justice to “immediately withdraw the present criminal determination” from Justice Kumar.Now, as per the new roster, a division bench comprising senior judge Arindam Sinha and Justice Kumar will hear civil matters pertaining to family court appeals, matters pertaining to the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act of 2007, and Writ C (a specific category of writ petitions) matters, except as provided elsewhere.Following a controversy over the SC order, the same bench of the apex court had deleted critical remarks against Justice Kumar and also the direction that he not be assigned any criminal matter as long as he is in office. This order, especially the direction for removal of criminal law work from Justice Kumar until retirement, drew criticism within SC as well as Allahabad HC.Subsequently, at least 13 high court judges had written to Chief Justice Arun Bhansali urging him to convene a full court meeting and not comply SC’s directives against Justice Kumar. Interestingly, the letter was authored by Justice Arindam Sinha.In its Aug 4 order, SC, while hearing a special leave petition, had strongly criticised Justice Kumar’s reasoning and expressed shock at his conclusion that civil disputes could be pursued through criminal prosecution because civil suits “take years to conclude”. However, following the controversy, the apex court re-listed the matter to reconsider its directions. It was done on the request of CJI B R Gavai. Subsequently, in its Aug 8 order, the division bench clarified it had no intention to “cause embarrassment or cast aspersions on the concerned judge” and reiterated that the judiciary must protect its institutional dignity.