‘Cite Judgments, Not Judges’: Allahabad High Court Disapproves Naming Supreme Court Judges in Orders

Holding that courts should cite judgments and not name individual judges, the Allahabad High Court has disapproved of the practice of mentioning the names of Supreme Court judges while referring to apex court rulings, calling it “totally uncalled for".

The observation was made by the bench of Justice Samit Gopal while dismissing a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution by Priyank Kumar, who had challenged orders passed by courts in Meerut.

The high court criticised the revisional court for naming Supreme Court judges while citing an apex court judgment, observing that while referring to precedents, courts should mention only the citation, case details, date of decision, and the relevant portion relied upon. Court said that mentioning the names of judges constituting the Bench was improper and unnecessary.

Court noted that similar directions had already been issued earlier and circulated to district courts, but the concerned court appeared to have ignored them.

Therefore, court directed the Registrar (Compliance) to communicate the present order within one week to the district and sessions judge concerned for transmitting it to the concerned officer for bringing it to his notice and being cautious in future.

Court also ordered a copy of the order to be sent directly to the concerned officer for being cautious in future. 

Kumar had challenged the Meerut court order rejecting his complaint, alleging cheating and fraud in connection with promises of securing government employment. Kumar 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. He alleged that several accused persons, who were related to one another, falsely claimed to have influence in government departments and cheated people by promising jobs in exchange for money.

According to the complainant, he came into contact with one of the accused, Vineet Singh, in 2018 and began working with him in a private firm. Over time, other accused persons were introduced as seniors and as having strong links in the medical department. It was claimed that one of them was presented as a medical officer.

Priyank alleged that in September 2019, the accused offered to secure a clerk’s post for his younger brother at Meerut Medical College, stating that Rs 12 lakh would be required for the appointment. The amount was later allegedly reduced to Rs 7 lakh, with a part payment to be made upfront and the balance after issuance of the appointment letter.

The complainant claimed that Rs 50,000 was transferred to the bank account of one of the accused and that an additional Rs 4 lakh was paid in cash in the presence of witnesses. When no employment materialised and the money was not returned, he approached the local police station and later senior police officials, but no action was taken.

The magistrate initially treated the application as a complaint case and summoned the accused in August 2023. This summoning order was later challenged by the accused before the high court, which in August 2024 set aside the order and remanded the matter to the trial court to pass fresh orders after hearing the complainant.

Following reconsideration, 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, holding that no sufficient grounds were made out to proceed against the accused. A criminal revision filed against this order was also dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge in August 2025.

Challenging both orders, Priyank Kumar approached the high court, contending that the accused had taken money under false pretences and that offences under the Indian Penal Code were clearly made out. He sought restoration of the complaint and summoning of the accused to face trial.

Opposing the petition, the State and the accused argued that the allegations were false, motivated, and unsupported by evidence. It was also contended that there was no material on record to establish payment of money and that any agreement to secure government employment was illegal and against public policy.

After examining the record, the high court held that the allegations revolved around payment of money for securing employment, which was inherently illegal.

Court found that both the magistrate and the revisional court had passed reasoned orders addressing the merits of the case and that no illegality or perversity was shown warranting interference under Article 227.

Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.

Case Title: Priyank Kumar vs. State Of U.P. And 6 Others

Order Date: January 27, 2026

Bench: Justice Samit Gopal