The Allahabad High Court has expressed strong disapproval of Sanjay Prasad, the Additional Chief Secretary (Home) of Uttar Pradesh, for his attempts to obstruct the court’s directives on police reforms and investigative guidelines in the state. Justice Vinod Diwakar highlighted ongoing resistance at the administrative level to the implementation of judicially suggested reforms intended to enhance the quality and accountability of criminal investigations in Uttar Pradesh.
The court noted a lack of institutional support from authorities responsible for civil administration, despite repeated judicial initiatives aimed at strengthening investigative processes. Justice Diwakar remarked, “The record placed before the Court indicates that, on more than one occasion, judicial initiatives intended to strengthen the quality, fairness, and accountability of criminal investigations have not received the degree of institutional support that would ordinarily be expected from the authorities entrusted with civil administration.”
Criticism was particularly directed at Prasad, a 1995-batch IAS officer, for his “apparent reluctance” to facilitate the implementation of these reforms. The court warned that such conduct, if unaddressed, could undermine the authority of Constitutional Courts and set a negative precedent for future treatment of judicial directions concerning police reforms by the executive. “This Court cannot be a silent spectator to such conduct,” the Bench firmly stated.
This scrutiny arose during the court’s consideration of a habeas corpus petition filed by a woman seeking custody of her minor daughter, who had allegedly been enticed away. The court found the police had failed to conduct a fair and effective investigation. As such, the court examined adherence to its directives issued in the case of Subhash Chandra & Others v. State of UP & Another regarding investigation improvements.
During proceedings, when asked for explanations on the non-compliance with these directions, Prasad informed the court of the state’s intention to challenge the earlier judgments at the Supreme Court. However, the court noted that no action had been taken to contest these directions for nearly a year after their pronouncement, until the court sought an explanation from Prasad.
More Read
Justice Diwakar underscored that while the state has a right to appeal in the Supreme Court, such actions should not be driven by personal motives of the ACS (Home). He stated, “The ACS (Home)…while being a senior officer in the administrative hierarchy, occupies a supervisory and coordinating role.” His actions should align with genuine institutional assessments rather than personal agendas.
While reflecting on the ACS’s conduct, the court found it difficult to ignore the possibility that the proposed Special Leave Petition was used to delay scrutiny of the non-compliance rather than pursuing a bona fide resolution from the Supreme Court.
The court emphasized that police reforms aim to ensure fair investigations without diminishing executive authority over police administration. Resistance to such measures contradicts the constitutional mandate to uphold the rule of law and public confidence in the justice system.
More Read
Further addressing bureaucracy’s role, the court mentioned that excessive discretion to officers can undermine the rule of law. It stressed accountability among superior officers for the actions of their subordinates, highlighting potential criminal liability for failures leading to misconduct.
Lastly, the court directed the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) of the Government of India to consider its findings regarding Prasad’s conduct when assessing his suitability for future roles. The court mandated the transmission of its orders to the DoPT for record and consideration.
Advocate Raghvendra Yadav represented the petitioner, while Additional Advocate General MC Chaturvedi and Additional Government Advocate Vibhav Anand Singh represented the state.
