Judicial Orders Are Not the Place for Filthy Language: Allahabad High Court Rebukes Use of Abusive Words in Court Documents

“Decorum and Dignity of the Post Must Be Reflected in Judicial Language” – High Court Directs U.P. Judiciary to Exercise Restraint in Drafting Orders and Recording Statements. Allahabad High Court, in a strong and significant pronouncement in the case of Santreepa Devi vs. State of U.P. & 06 Others, deplored the use of abusive and filthy language in a judicial order as well as in the recorded testimony of a witness. The Court directed that all judicial officers in the State of Uttar Pradesh must strictly avoid the use of indecent language in orders or pleadings, reinforcing that judicial decorum must be maintained at all times.

Justice Harvir Singh, while deciding a criminal revision filed against the dismissal of a private complaint under Section 203 CrPC, made an important observation on the inappropriate language used by a Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Varanasi, and called for systemic correction to uphold the sanctity and dignity of the judicial process.

“The Recording of Filthy Language and Abusive Words in the Pleadings are Unwarranted and Inappropriate”

During the hearing of the revision petition, the High Court took serious exception to the language used by the trial court in its order dated 07.08.2024, and further, to the verbatim recording of abusive words in the statement of the complainant (PW-1) recorded on 30.04.2024 under Section 202 CrPC.

Justice Singh noted: “It has come on record and is a matter of fact that abusive language and literal words (not repeated) have been used in the order passed by learned Special Judge SC/ST Act, Varanasi, as well as in the statement of PW-1 recorded on 30.04.2024.”

The Court emphasized that both the Supreme Court and the High Court have, time and again, issued directives emphasizing that judicial language must remain decent, restrained, and professional, even when dealing with vulgar or abusive content in witness depositions or complaints.

The High Court categorically stated: “The decorum and dignity of the post be appeared to have been reflected in the language used in the judicial orders.”

Judicial Reminder on Language: “Avoid Use of Filthy or Abusive Language in Orders or Testimonies”

In a significant step, the Court issued a general direction to all judicial officers across the district courts in Uttar Pradesh, instructing them to exercise strict linguistic discipline while drafting orders and recording statements, especially where the complainant or witness uses foul language.

Justice Harvir Singh directed:

“All judicial officers of the state judiciary shall take due precautions, avoiding the use of such abusive or filthy language and words… while discharging their duties.”

The Court also underscored that the directive was not punitive in nature, but issued “in positivities of things,” to enhance the standard of judicial functioning and preserve the institutional dignity of the courts.

“This order is being passed in positivities of things and not to be construed in negativity.”

Administrative Compliance and Circulation

To ensure implementation, the Court directed that a copy of the judgment be forwarded to the Registrar (Compliance), with instructions to circulate the order among all judicial officers in the state:

“Let a copy of this order be circulated amongst all judicial officers of the District Courts of State of U.P. to comply with for being careful in future and avoid the usage of such language…”

This order effectively places an institutional responsibility on trial judges and magistrates to ensure that even when abusive language is part of the evidence, it is handled with judicial maturity and filtered through the lens of dignity expected from the bench.

In this important judgment, the Allahabad High Court has once again brought to the forefront the foundational principle that the courtroom is a forum of civility, respect, and institutional decorum. By condemning the use of filthy language in judicial orders and testimonies, the Court has drawn a clear line between what may be said in the heat of personal conflict and what should find place in the official record of a court of law.

The judgment serves as a timely reminder to the entire judicial machinery that language is not merely a medium but also a reflection of justice. Courts are not only forums of legal determination but also custodians of constitutional and ethical standards, where every word carries the weight of authority and respect.

Date of Decision: 10 September 2025