The Allahabad High Court has cautioned all judicial officers across Uttar Pradesh against using abusive or filthy languages in court records, emphasizing that such words are unwarranted and undermine the dignity and decorum of the judiciary.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
UTTAR PRADESH: In a ruling underscoring the importance of decorum in the judicial process, the Allahabad High Court has issued a statewide directive cautioning all judicial officers in Uttar Pradesh against the use of abusive or inappropriate language in court records and witness statements.
The order came while the Court was dismissing a criminal revision petition filed by Smt. Santreepa Devi, challenging a lower court’s decision. Though the High Court upheld the dismissal on merits, it took serious exception to the “filthy language and abusive words” found in the trial court’s records, an issue that has now prompted a statewide judicial reminder.
Background
The case originated from a complaint filed by Santreepa Devi alleging that she was assaulted and robbed of her Mangalsutra at gunpoint by the accused, identified as Opposite Party No. 2.
Her complaint was dismissed on August 7, 2024, by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Varanasi, who found no cogent evidence to proceed under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). The complainant then filed a revision before the High Court, contending that the trial court had failed to appreciate the evidence correctly.
Arguments Before the High Court
For the Revisionist:
Advocate Rajiv Chowdhury argued that the Special Judge’s order was “wholly illegal and arbitrary,” asserting that the court ignored crucial evidence, including witness statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and a medical report showing injuries on the complainant.
For the State:
The Assistant Government Advocate (A.G.A.) maintained that the trial court’s decision was justified, emphasizing that the witness statements lacked consistency and failed to corroborate the complainant’s account. The State’s counsel argued that mere allegations were insufficient to summon the accused in the absence of strong supporting evidence.
High Court’s Observations and Decision
Justice Harvir Singh, presiding over the matter, upheld the trial court’s decision, observing that the witnesses’ statements “lacked coherence and continuity” and failed to establish a prima facie case.
Regarding the medical report, the Court noted that while the injuries were simple, the weapon used was not identified, further weakening the case.
Concluding that there was no illegality or arbitrariness in the trial court’s order, Justice Singh dismissed the revision petition as “devoid of merit.”
While the High Court agreed with the lower court’s decision on legal grounds, Justice Singh expressed deep concern over the use of abusive and inappropriate language found in the records, both in the Special Judge’s order and in the recorded testimony of a witness dated April 30, 2024.
The Court stated:
“The recording of filthy languages and abusive words in the pleadings are unwarranted and inappropriate.”
Justice Singh reminded judicial officers that the dignity of the court must be reflected in the language of its orders. The Court referenced existing directions from both the Supreme Court and the Allahabad High Court requiring judicial officers to maintain decency and restraint in their written and spoken words during proceedings.
Issuing a comprehensive directive, the High Court ordered that:
“Not only the individual officer but all judicial officers of the state judiciary shall take due precautions, avoiding the uses of such abusive or filthy language and words… The decorum and dignity of the post be appeared to have been reflected in the language used in judicial orders.”
To ensure compliance, the Court instructed the Registrar (Compliance) to circulate a copy of this order among all judicial officers across Uttar Pradesh. Justice Singh clarified that the intent behind this directive was positive and corrective, not punitive:
“This order is being passed in positivities of things and not to be construed in negativity.”
Appearance:
Counsel for Revisionist: Rajiv Chowdhury
Counsel for Opposite Party: G.A.
Case Title:
Santreepa Devi Versus State Of UP And 06 Others
CRIMINAL REVISION No. – 4710 of 2024
Read Order: