No need to name Supreme Court Judges in Judgments, HC to Trial Judges

The Allahabad High Court has strongly deprecated the practice of trial courts mentioning the names of Supreme Court judges while citing precedents, calling it “totally uncalled for,” even as it dismissed a petition seeking revival of a criminal case based on an alleged cash-for-government-job arrangement.

The ruling came while the Court was examining a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the dismissal of a cheating complaint in Meerut. While upholding the lower courts’ orders, the High Court turned its focus to a wider judicial discipline issue, flagging improper citation practices that undermine settled norms of judgment writing and compliance with earlier High Court directions.

The controversy arose when the petitioner alleged that his relatives took money on the promise of securing a clerk’s job for his brother at a medical college. The complaint was dismissed by the Magistrate and the decision was upheld in revision. During scrutiny of the revisional court’s order, the High Court noticed that while relying on a Supreme Court judgment, the Additional Sessions Judge had specifically mentioned the names of the judges constituting the Supreme Court Bench. This, the High Court noted, directly violated prior instructions issued to subordinate courts.

Explaining its reasoning, the Court reiterated that judgments must refer only to the citation, case details, date, and relevant extract of precedents, not the names of judges. Justice Samit Gopal observed that “this system cannot be appreciated” and reminded judicial officers that naming judges while citing precedents is unnecessary and improper. On merits, the Court also found that the complaint itself was founded on an illegal transaction, noting that “the allegations… are of giving money to the accused by the complainant, the same is illegal, the said agreement is against public policy.”

Consequently, the petition was dismissed, the revisional court’s order was upheld, and directions were issued to the Registry to caution the erring judicial officer and address administrative lapses within the court system.

Case Title: Priyank Kumar Vs. State Of U.P. And 6 Ors.

Case No.: Matters Under Article 227 No. - 15555 of 2025

Coram: Hon'ble Justice Samit Gopal,

Advocate for the Petitioner: Adv. Anand Mohan Pandey, Adv. Vipul Kumar Mishra

Advocate for the Respondent: G.A.

Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com