The ruling came from Justice Harvir Singh while hearing a criminal revision petition (Santreepa Devi v. State of UP and 6 Others), where the court observed that a Special Judge under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, had transcribed offensive words in both an official order and the statement of a key witness (PW-1).
Upholding the Dignity of the Court
Justice Singh noted that both the Supreme Court and the High Court have repeatedly issued guidelines promoting the use of "decent and normal language" in all judicial proceedings.
“The recording of filthy languages and abusive words in the pleadings are unwarranted and inappropriate,” the Court stated. It explicitly directed that all judicial officers must "take due precautions, avoiding the uses of such abusive or filthy language and words... The decorum and dignity of the post be appeared to have been reflected in the language used in the judicial orders.”
This order serves as a potent reminder that the legal process, even when dealing with contentious and aggressive testimony, must maintain a standard of formality and respect. The High Court ordered that a copy of the ruling be circulated immediately among all judicial officers in the State of U.P. for strict compliance, clarifying that the direction was issued "in positivities of things and not to be construed in negativity.”
Substantive Case Dismissed
While issuing the strong guidance on language, the High Court concurrently upheld the trial court's original decision to dismiss the underlying criminal complaint for lack of evidence.
The revisionist had challenged the Special Judge’s decision to dismiss her complaint, which alleged an altercation involving injuries and the snatching of a mangalsutra (a traditional necklace) at gunpoint.
However, Justice Singh agreed with the trial court's assessment, noting a critical lack of supporting evidence. The court found that the statements of the witnesses "lacks coherence and continuity" to establish a prima facie case against the accused.
“The other witnesses did not support the statement of PW1 namely, the revisionist herself and therefore, mere allegations made against the person is not sufficient, unless other cogent material is available on record,” the single judge observed. Furthermore, the medical report confirmed only simple injuries, and the weapon used to cause them was not identified, ultimately confirming that the trial court's dismissal order was neither "illegal and arbitrary."
The judgment, therefore, concluded the criminal matter while initiating a state-wide mandate to improve the linguistic standards and professionalism maintained in court records.