The Allahabad High Court disapproved of naming individual Supreme Court judges while citing rulings, stressing that courts must refer only to judgments and citations. Justice Samit Gopal termed the practice improper while dismissing Priyank Kumar’s Article 227 petition.
PRAYAGRAJ: The Allahabad High Court has expressed disapproval of the practice of naming individual Supreme Court judges while referencing apex court rulings, asserting that courts should cite judgments instead. This observation was made by Justice Samit Gopal while dismissing a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution by Priyank Kumar, who contested orders from courts in Meerut.
The high court criticized the revisional court for specifically naming Supreme Court judges when citing judgments, stating that in referencing precedents, courts should only include the citation, case specifics, date of decision, and the relevant portions of the ruling relied upon. The court remarked that mentioning the names of judges on the Bench was “improper and unnecessary.” It noted that similar directives had been issued previously and circulated to district courts, yet the relevant court seemed to have disregarded them.
Consequently, the court instructed the Registrar (Compliance) to communicate this current order within one week to the district and sessions judge to ensure it is brought to the concerned officer’s attention and to promote caution moving forward. The court also mandated that a copy of the order be sent directly to the relevant officer for future compliance.
Kumar’s challenge stemmed from a Meerut court order that rejected his complaint alleging cheating and fraud related to false promises of government employment. He had filed the complaint under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure [corresponding to Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita] in November 2022, claiming that several relatives of one accused had misled individuals by offering jobs in exchange for money.
The complainant detailed his interaction with one accused, Vineet Singh, beginning in 2018 when he started working at a private firm. Over time, other accused were introduced as superiors with purported strong connections in the medical department, including one claimed to be a medical officer.
In September 2019, Kumar stated that the accused promised to secure a clerk’s position for his younger brother at Meerut Medical College for a fee of Rs 12 lakh, later reduced to Rs 7 lakh, requiring a part payment upfront and the rest post-issuance of the job appointment letter.
Kumar asserted that Rs 50,000 was transferred to one accused’s bank account, with an additional Rs 4 lakh paid in cash in the presence of witnesses. When no job materialized and the money was not refunded, he approached the local police station and higher officials, but no action was taken. Initially, the magistrate treated the application as a complaint case and summoned the accused in August 2023.
However, this summoning order was later challenged by the accused before the high court, which in August 2024 annulled the order and directed the trial court to reconsider the matter after hearing the complainant. Upon reevaluation, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate dismissed the complaint under Section 203 CrPC (corresponding to Section 226 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita) in October 2024, ruling that there were insufficient grounds to proceed against the accused. A criminal revision challenging this dismissal was also rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge in August 2025.
Kumar then approached the high court, arguing that the accused had fraudulently taken money and that offenses under the Indian Penal Code had clearly been established. He sought the reinstatement of the complaint and the summoning of the accused for trial. In opposition, the State and the accused contended that the allegations were fabricated, motivated, and lacked evidence.
They also argued that there was no material substantiating the payment and that any agreement to secure government employment was illegal and contrary to public policy.
After reviewing the records, the high court concluded that the allegations pertained to payments made for securing employment, which are inherently illegal. The court found that both the magistrate and the revisional court had issued reasoned orders addressing the case’s merits and that no illegality or arbitrariness warranted intervention under Article 227. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.
Case Title: Priyank Kumar vs. State Of U.P. And 6 Others
Read Attachment: