The Supreme Court has issued a stay on the Allahabad High Court’s judgment targeting Uttar Pradesh’s Additional Chief Secretary (Home), Sanjay Prasad, an IAS officer accused of hindering police reforms. This decision was rendered by a bench comprising Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Atul Chandurkar in response to an appeal filed by Prasad. Known for his close association with Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath, Prasad is a significant figure in the state’s bureaucracy.
The High Court, in its ruling, had criticized Prasad, suggesting that his actions be reviewed by the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) when considering his future assignments. However, this directive has now been suspended by the Supreme Court.
Background of the High Court’s Ruling
The contested judgment, delivered by Justice Vinod Diwakar on June 3, accused Prasad of deliberately attempting to undermine the court’s authority. Justice Diwakar pointed out that administrative resistance in Uttar Pradesh had consistently obstructed judicial initiatives aimed at enhancing the integrity and accountability of criminal investigations.
The High Court noted several instances where judicial directives intended to improve police investigations were not supported by the administrative authorities. Justice Diwakar remarked on Prasad’s apparent hesitation to implement reforms, which were crucial for boosting investigative standards and ensuring compliance with judicial directives.
The judgment came in the context of a habeas corpus petition filed by a woman seeking custody of her minor daughter, who was allegedly taken away by a man. The High Court criticized the police for failing to conduct an effective investigation, prompting an inquiry into whether police reforms ordered in the Subhash Chandra & Others v. State of UP & Another case were being followed.
More Read
Prasad’s Defense and Supreme Court Stay
When asked to explain the non-compliance with the court’s directives, Prasad’s affidavit indicated that the state planned to challenge the directions issued in the Subhash Chandra case. The High Court observed that the state delayed challenging these directives, only deciding to do so after being questioned about compliance.
Though the state has the right to appeal to the Supreme Court, the High Court emphasized that such decisions should not be driven by personal motivations. Justice Diwakar remarked that Prasad’s conduct seemed to resist necessary police reforms, which aim to promote fairness in criminal investigations without undermining executive authority.
Highlighting the importance of police reforms, the High Court urged the DoPT to consider its findings on Prasad’s conduct when evaluating his suitability for future roles. Despite this, the Supreme Court’s stay on the High Court’s order has halted immediate actions against Prasad.
