Can a Judge Record Abusive Words Used by Witnesses? Allahabad HC Says No
The Allahabad High Court orders UP judicial officers to stop reproducing abusive language in court records
The Allahabad High Court has expressed concern over the verbatim recording of abusive and indecent words in a trial court order and witness statements.
The bench of Justice Harvir Singh, while deciding a criminal revision petition, directed all judicial officers in Uttar Pradesh to refrain from reproducing such language in judicial orders or evidence, even when it forms part of the case narration.
Court noted that in the case before it, the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Varanasi, had included “literal abusive words” in the impugned order as well as in the statement of the complainant recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. on April 30, 2024.
These words, the High Court clarified, appeared to have been part of the complainant’s original account of the altercation, but were nevertheless transcribed in full in both the statement and the order.
Justice Singh remarked that while it may be necessary for a judge to note the facts of what transpired between parties, “recording such filthy language or abusive words in judicial orders or evidence is unwarranted and inappropriate.” He observed that both the Supreme Court and the High Court have repeatedly emphasised the importance of maintaining “decency and normal language” in judicial records, and that the Special Judge appeared to have disregarded these long-standing directions.
“The decorum and dignity of the post be appeared to have been reflected in the language used in judicial orders,” Justice Singh stated, underlining that while facts must be accurately documented, they must also be presented with due restraint and decorum.
Therefore, court directed not only the judge in the court below but also all judicial officers of the state judiciary to take due precautions, avoiding the use of such abusive or filthy language and words while recording the case proceedings in the case at hand.
Court directed that a copy of its order be circulated among all judicial officers in the state through the Registrar (Compliance) to ensure that judges exercise discretion in such matters going forward.
Clarifying that the direction was not punitive in nature, the judge noted, “This order is being passed in positivities of things and not to be construed in negativity".
Through the present criminal revision petition, the woman had challenged the decision of the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Varanasi, who had earlier dismissed her private complaint filed against seven individuals. She alleged that during an altercation, she was assaulted and that one of the accused had snatched her mangalsutra at gunpoint using a country-made pistol. She argued that the trial court had ignored her statement recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and those of two supporting witnesses examined under Section 202 Cr.P.C., all of which, according to her, substantiated her version of the incident.
However, the high court upheld the trial court’s conclusion that the case lacked sufficient evidence to proceed.
Case Title: Santreepa Devi vs. State Of Up And 06 Others
Order Date: September 10, 2025
Bench: Justice Harvir Singh