The Allahabad High Court has issued a strict warning to an Additional Sessions Judge for mentioning the names of Hon’ble Judges of the Supreme Court while citing a precedent in a judicial order. Terming the practice “totally uncalled for,” the Court directed administrative action to ensure such errors are not repeated.
The observation was made by Justice Samit Gopal while dismissing a petition filed by one Priyank Kumar, who sought action against individuals for allegedly taking money to provide a government job—an agreement the High Court ruled was “illegal” and “against public policy.”
Judicial Propriety and Citation Format
While reviewing the validity of the Revisional Court’s order dated August 28, 2025, the High Court took strong exception to the manner in which the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 13, Meerut, cited a Supreme Court judgment. The Court noted that the lower court judge had explicitly mentioned the names of the Supreme Court Judges constituting the Bench while relying on a case reported in 2024 (128) ACC 307.
Expressing strong disapproval regarding the inclusion of judges’ names in the citation, Justice Samit Gopal stated:
“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.”
The Court highlighted that the Registrar General of the High Court had already issued a circular on May 23, 2025, communicating directions to all District Judges and Presiding Officers to avoid this specific practice, following an earlier order in Criminal Appeal No. 5764 of 2024 (Mohd. Iftikhar Vs. State of U.P.).
The Bench remarked that the concerned Revisional Court appeared to be “quite oblivious” to these standing instructions.
Directives Issued
The High Court directed the Registrar (Compliance) to communicate the order to the District and Sessions Judge, Meerut, and directly to the concerned Officer to ensure they are cautious in the future. The Court mandated that the officers send a report of compliance within two weeks.
Additionally, regarding an administrative lapse where hand-written notes on the petition were initially overlooked by the Stamp Reporter, the Court accepted the unconditional apology of the Review Officer but directed the Registrar (Criminal) to issue a warning to the officer to work diligently in the future.
Context: The Underlying ‘Job for Cash’ Case
The strictures were passed in a case where the petitioner, Priyank Kumar, had approached the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. He challenged orders passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM) and the Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ), Meerut, which had dismissed his complaint regarding an alleged fraud.
Background and Allegations
The petitioner alleged that the accused, who are his relatives, had conspired to cheat him by promising to secure a clerk’s job for his younger brother, Ankur Singh, at Meerut Medical College. Kumar claimed the accused demanded Rs. 12 lakh for the appointment, out of which he paid Rs. 50,000 via bank transfer and approximately Rs. 4 lakh in cash. When the employment was not provided and the money was not returned, he initiated legal proceedings.
Arguments
- Petitioner: Counsel Sri Vipul Kumar Mishra argued that offences under Sections 406 (Criminal Breach of Trust) and 420 (Cheating) of the IPC were made out as the money was not returned.
- Respondents: Counsel for the State, Sri Ajay Singh, and the private respondents, Sri Yash Pratap Singh, argued that the allegations were false and stemmed from a personal dispute. They contended that the alleged agreement to pay money for a job was “against public policy” and unenforceable.
Court’s Decision on Merit
Justice Samit Gopal examined the nature of the transaction alleged by the petitioner. The Court observed that the core allegation pertained to giving money to the accused for securing employment illegally.
Dismissing the petition, the Court held:
“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.”
The Bench affirmed the lower courts’ dismissal of the complaint, noting that the impugned orders were “speaking orders addressing merits of the matter.”
The matter has been listed for further orders in Chamber on February 18, 2026.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Priyank Kumar Versus State Of U.P. And 6 Others
- Case Number: Matters Under Article 227 No. 15555 of 2025
- Coram: Justice Samit Gopal
- Counsel for Petitioner: Anand Mohan Pandey, Vipul Kumar Mishra
- Counsel for Respondents: G.A. (State), Yash Pratap Singh
