Allahabad High Court Slams Practice of Naming Supreme Court Judges in Trial Orders

Introduction

In a pointed critique of judicial practices, the Allahabad High Court has deprecated the tendency of trial court judges to mention the names of Supreme Court judges in their orders while citing precedents, terming it "totally uncalled for" and unappreciable. This observation came in the backdrop of dismissing a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution by Priyank Kumar, who alleged that his relatives cheated him out of Rs. 4.5 lakhs by promising a government job for his brother. The single bench of Hon'ble Justice Samit Gopal not only upheld the lower courts' dismissal of the complaint but also issued directives to reinforce procedural norms, including a warning to the High Court's registry for administrative lapses. The ruling, dated January 27, 2026, underscores the importance of impersonal and standardized citation practices in judicial orders, reminding lower court officers of prior circular instructions issued in May 2025. This decision arrives amid growing scrutiny over judicial etiquette and the enforceability of informal agreements in employment scams, potentially setting a precedent for cleaner documentation and stricter adherence to public policy principles in criminal proceedings.

The case originated from a complaint under Sections 406 (criminal breach of trust), 420 (cheating), and other provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), highlighting how familial ties can mask fraudulent schemes. While the petition's merits were swiftly dismissed due to the illegal nature of the underlying agreement, the court's broader comments on judicial writing and administrative efficiency add significant value for legal practitioners navigating supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227.

Case Background

The dispute traces back to 2018 when petitioner Priyank Kumar, a computer typing professional, befriended Vineet Singh at the District Court in Meerut. Kumar began working for a private company associated with Singh, where he was introduced to other individuals, including Bhuvnesh Kumar (alleged to be an MBBS doctor and Medical Officer) and Sandeep, presented as seniors with connections in the medical department. Kumar provided photocopies of his Aadhaar, PAN, and bank details, along with signing blank papers for supposed company use.

By August 2019, the accused—Kumar's relatives including Vineet Singh, Bhuvnesh Kumar, Sandeep, Munendra Singh, Sanjeev Kumar, and Manoj Singh—allegedly conspired to exploit these ties. They promised to secure a clerk position for Kumar's younger brother, Ankur Singh, at Meerut Medical College, claiming strong official contacts. The deal required Rs. 10 lakhs for departmental influence and Rs. 2 lakhs for expenses, later negotiated to Rs. 7 lakhs upfront with Rs. 5 lakhs post-appointment. On September 10, 2019, at Munendra Singh's house, Kumar was persuaded to pay Rs. 50,000 immediately, which he transferred to Bhuvnesh Kumar's bank account. Subsequently, on October 12, 2019, Kumar and his brother handed over Rs. 4 lakhs in cash in the presence of Sanjeev and Manoj.

No job materialized, and demands for repayment went unheeded. Kumar first approached the Civil Lines Police Station in Meerut, but no action followed. He then escalated to the Senior Superintendent of Police, still without results. On November 10, 2022, Kumar filed an application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) seeking a police investigation into the cheating.

The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 5, Meerut, treated it as a complaint (Case No. 13462 of 2023) and, on August 14, 2023, summoned the accused under the relevant IPC sections. The accused challenged this via a Section 482 CrPC petition (No. 13125 of 2024), which a coordinate bench of the High Court allowed on August 29, 2024, setting aside the summons and remanding for fresh hearing. Upon remand, the Magistrate dismissed the complaint on October 28, 2024, under Section 203 CrPC, citing insufficient grounds. Kumar's criminal revision (No. 74 of 2025) against this was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 13, Meerut, on August 28, 2025.

Aggrieved, Kumar invoked the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, filing the instant petition (No. 15555 of 2025) on grounds of procedural irregularity and substantive merit in his cheating allegations. The core legal questions were: (1) Whether the alleged payments constituted cheating warranting summons and trial? (2) If the agreement was enforceable or barred by public policy? Additionally, during review, the High Court identified procedural anomalies in the lower court's order and its own registry processes.

This timeline, spanning from 2018 employment overtures to 2026 High Court dismissal, illustrates the protracted nature of such familial fraud cases and the judiciary's role in filtering baseless claims rooted in illegality.

Arguments Presented

The petitioner's counsel, Anand Mohan Pandey and Vipul Kumar Mishra, argued that the relatives had exploited familial bonds to perpetrate a clear case of cheating and breach of trust. They contended that the accused's representations about their influence in the medical department were false, inducing Kumar to part with Rs. 4.5 lakhs under the pretext of job placement. Evidence included the bank transfer receipt for Rs. 50,000 and witness accounts of the cash handover. The counsel emphasized that the lower courts erred in dismissing the complaint without proper inquiry, urging the High Court to set aside the orders dated October 28, 2024, and August 28, 2025, and direct summons to the accused for trial. They portrayed the transaction as a legitimate advance for services, not inherently illegal, and accused the respondents of malice in denying the payments.

Opposing the prayer, counsel for the State (Government Advocate) and the private respondents (Yash Pratap Singh for opposite parties 2-7) dismissed the allegations as fabricated and motivated by personal grudges. They highlighted that Kumar had been employed in the accused's private firm since 2018, and the complaint stemmed from workplace disputes rather than any genuine fraud. No documentary proof existed for the Rs. 4 lakhs cash payment, they argued, rendering the claim unsubstantiated. Crucially, they asserted that even if payments occurred, the agreement—to bribe officials for a government job—was patently illegal and against public policy, making it unenforceable under criminal law. The respondents stressed that the lower courts' speaking orders adequately addressed these merits, with no jurisdictional error warranting Article 227 interference. They further noted prior police inaction as indicative of the complaint's weakness, urging dismissal to prevent abuse of process.

These contentions framed a classic clash: the petitioner seeking vindication through criminal summons versus the defense's focus on evidentiary voids and the pact's inherent unlawfulness, setting the stage for the court's public policy analysis.

Legal Analysis

Justice Samit Gopal's bench meticulously perused the records, concluding that the allegations, even if true, revealed an illegal arrangement void ab initio. The court applied the principle that agreements facilitating corruption, such as paying for undue influence in public employment, contravene public policy and cannot form the basis for criminal relief under IPC provisions like Sections 406 and 420. This aligns with established jurisprudence where courts refuse to entertain claims arising from immoral or prohibited contracts, preventing the judiciary from aiding unlawful bargains.

A key precedent referenced was a Supreme Court judgment reported in 2024 (128) ACC 307 , cited by the revisional court in Meerut. However, the High Court took umbrage at how this was invoked—not for its substantive value, but for the manner of citation. The sessions judge had explicitly named the Supreme Court judges constituting the bench, a practice the Allahabad High Court deemed inappropriate. Justice Gopal clarified that judicial orders must remain impersonal: citations should include only the case number, parties, date, and relevant excerpts, preserving the institution's dignity over individual reverence.

This critique echoed a prior instance in January 2025, where the High Court, in Criminal Appeal No. 5764 of 2024 (Mohd. Iftikhar Vs. State of U.P.) , issued directions against such naming. In compliance, the Registrar General circulated instructions via letter No. 15/Admin.G-II dated May 23, 2025, to all district judges, family court principals, and presiding officers of commercial courts, MACTs, and land acquisition courts. Yet, the bench noted the Meerut judge's "obliviousness" to these guidelines, distinguishing proper citation (which upholds precedent's authority) from personal attribution (which borders on undue familiarity).

On the merits, the court distinguished between genuine service agreements and those implying bribery, the latter being societal harms unworthy of protection. No specific injuries were alleged beyond financial loss from an illicit deal, reinforcing dismissal under Section 203 CrPC. Administratively, the ruling addressed registry lapses: Handwritten notes on petition documents (pages 26-31) went unflagged by the Stamp Reporter (Review Officer Fanendra Pal Singh), prompting a warning for diligent future work. This underscores procedural integrity as foundational to justice delivery.

Overall, the analysis balances substantive criminal thresholds with procedural hygiene, ensuring Article 227's supervisory role corrects errors without micromanaging lower courts.

Key Observations

The judgment is replete with incisive remarks emphasizing judicial standards and policy imperatives. Here are pivotal excerpts:

• On the impropriety of naming judges: "This system of the revisional court cannot be appreciated. It is reminded that while citing the judgments their citation and/or case number and party name and/or the date of decision along with the text which is relied upon is only to be quoted and mentioned in the judgment whereas on the said page the revisional court has mentioned the names of the Hon'ble Judges constituting the Bench. This Court does not appreciate the same and also is totally uncalled for." Justice Gopal attributed this to the Additional Sessions Judge, Meerut.

• Reiterating prior directives: "This Court had also come across a similar instance and has passed directions vide order dated 03.01.2025 in Criminal Appeal No. 5764 of 2024 (Mohd. Iftikhar Vs. State of U.P.) in compliance of which the Registrar General of this Court vide his letter No. 15/Admin.G-II/Allahabad dated 23.05.2025 addressed to all the District and Sessions Judges/OSD... had communicated the said directions to them, but the concerned revisional court appears to be quite oblivious to it."

• On the illegal agreement: "It is evident that the allegations in the present matter are of giving money to the accused by the complainant, the same is illegal, the said agreement is against public policy." This encapsulates the dismissal's rationale.

• Addressing registry lapses: "Neat and clean copies of documents are expected to be placed before the Courts. The mere response of the concerned Review Officer that the mistake is inadvertent due to oversight who tendered unconditional apology does not suffice." The court rejected a perfunctory apology.

• Directive to the errant officer: "The said Presiding Officer is hereby reminded of it and is called upon to look into the same and see that this error does not get repeated in future by him." This targets future compliance.

These observations, drawn verbatim from the January 27, 2026, order, highlight the bench's commitment to elevating judicial discourse and operational rigor.

Court's Decision

The High Court unequivocally dismissed the petition under Article 227, affirming the October 28, 2024, order of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate and the August 28, 2025, revisional order. No interference was warranted, as the lower courts' decisions were reasoned and addressed the complaint's merits, revealing no illegality in the agreement's treatment as void against public policy.

Practically, the ruling bars criminal proceedings on claims rooted in corrupt pacts, protecting the system from being weaponized for recovering bribe money. The bench directed the Registrar (Compliance) to notify the District and Sessions Judge, Meerut, within one week, for onward communication to the concerned Additional Sessions Judge, with a compliance report due in two weeks. A copy was also to be sent directly to the officer. Concurrently, the Registrar (Criminal) was ordered to warn Review Officer Fanendra Pal Singh against future oversights in document scrutiny.

The matter was listed for February 18, 2026, at 4:30 PM in chambers for further orders. Implications extend beyond this case: It reinforces impersonal citation norms, potentially curbing a lingering practice in lower courts and prompting refresher training. For employment fraud, it signals judicial intolerance for deals implying public sector corruption, likely deterring similar complaints while encouraging civil remedies where applicable. In a landscape of rising job scams, this decision promotes ethical boundaries, influencing how lawyers frame arguments in supervisory petitions and underscoring public policy's role in filtering illicit claims.

Broader Implications

This ruling's ripple effects on legal practice are profound. For trial judges, the deprecation serves as a clarion call for standardized writing, aligning with the judiciary's ethos of institutional authority over personal accolades. Non-compliance could invite supervisory scrutiny, as seen in the direct reminder and circular enforcement. Legal educators and bar associations may incorporate this into training modules, emphasizing citations' technicalities to avoid inadvertent breaches of etiquette.

In criminal law, the public policy bar against enforcing bribery-tainted agreements echoes precedents like those under the Prevention of Corruption Act, though not invoked here. It cautions complainants in familial or informal job deals to seek legitimate channels, reducing court burdens from unenforceable pacts. Administratively, the registry warning highlights the need for vigilant pre-filing checks, potentially leading to protocol updates across High Courts to ensure "neat and clean" filings.

For society, amid Uttar Pradesh's medical sector vacancies and scam reports, the decision deters exploitation of aspirants while affirming that justice won't retroactively validate corruption. Future cases may cite this for quicker dismissals, streamlining dockets and upholding the CrPC's gatekeeping under Section 203. Ultimately, it fortifies the judiciary's self-regulatory framework, fostering a more disciplined and impartial legal ecosystem.