E-Paper
Avoid recording abusive words in orders, witness statements: Allahabad HC to judicial officers
The decorum and dignity of the post appear to have been reflected in the language used in the judicial orders, observed the court
The Allahabad high court has directed all judicial officers in the state to avoid recording abusive language or filthy words made in evidence/ statements during trial. The court cautioned trial courts across Uttar Pradesh to be careful in future and take precautionary measures.
While dealing with a criminal revision against order of the special judge (SC/ST) Act, Varanasi, Justice Harvir Singh on September 10 observed, “The recording of filthy languages and abusive words in the pleadings are unwarranted and inappropriate, hence it is directed that not only the individual officer but all judicial officers of the state judiciary, shall take due precautions, avoiding the uses of such abusive or filthy language and words, those have been used in the order in question and the statement of PW-1 recorded on 30.04.2024.”
“The decorum and dignity of the post appear to have been reflected in the language used in the judicial orders”, the bench said, adding: “The court takes serious objection to the ‘literal abusive words’ and ‘abusive language’ used in the evidence recorded during trial, in the statement of one of the witnesses.”
“....the Hon’ble Apex Court, as well as this Court from time to time had directed that decent and normal language should be used, while passing the judicial order or in recording the statements of witnesses, but it appears that the Special Judge SC/ST Act did not pay any attention on the guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court,” the court said.
The facts of the case were that the special judge (SC/ST) Act, Varanasi, dismissed the complaint of the revisionist on ground that there was no cogent evidence against the opposite parties. Against this, the revisionist approached the high court on grounds that the statements of the witnesses were not considered while passing the impugned order.
On the merits of the case, Justice Singh observed that there was no coherence in the statements made by the witnesses and the material on record was not sufficient to make out a case against the opposite parties.
Senior advocate SFA Naqvi said, “As a practice, trial courts record statements of witnesses word to word and the statements of witnesses are part of lower court record and can be referred to, if required. But, quoting abusive and filthy words which were recorded during the recording of a statement of a witness in the judgment/order by trial court is not necessary and the same must be avoided as judgments are public documents and accessible to the public.”
