The Allahabad High Court has raised serious concerns regarding the conduct of police officers in Uttar Pradesh (UP), suggesting that their allegiance lies more with political superiors than with the Constitution. In the case of Rajendra Tyagi And 2 Others Vs. State Of U.P. And Another, Justice Vinod Diwakar voiced strong criticism of the UP police force, pointing out how a ‘feudal mindset’ among politicians and bureaucrats has transformed constitutional governance into a tool for personal power rather than public service.
The court highlighted that the state’s administrative machinery has historically been vulnerable to political manipulation. It noted that officer transfers, postings, and promotions often serve as rewards for political loyalty instead of being based on merit. Those officers who demonstrate independence are frequently reassigned to less significant roles, while those considered loyal to the ruling party are given prime positions in urban commissionerates and profitable districts.
Justice Diwakar remarked, “The vertical loyalty of officers runs not toward the Constitution but toward the ruling dispensation. Field officers, acutely conscious of the transfer-posting economy, calibrate their conduct to satisfy political superiors.” He further elaborated on the practice of encounter killings, selective crackdowns, and the targeted application of the Gangsters Act, all of which have garnered judicial scrutiny.
In a critical examination of police operations and the rule of law in Uttar Pradesh, Justice Diwakar observed that many officers view the rule of law as an operational inconvenience rather than a constitutional duty. He cited instances where arrests are made without due process, First Information Reports (FIRs) are manipulated for ulterior motives, and preventive detention laws are arbitrarily applied. He emphasized that procedural safeguards under the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita are frequently ignored, with judicial orders being superficially complied with and substantively undermined.
The court’s remarks came during the hearing of a case related to the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. Although the Supreme Court is also examining issues related to the 1986 Act, Justice Diwakar refrained from delivering a final ruling. Nonetheless, he underscored various deficiencies in the functioning of the UP police.
The Allahabad High Court also criticized attempts to reform the UP Police, noting a lack of support. It directed the State Home Secretary to independently assess the suitability and effectiveness of officers. The court condemned past Home Secretaries who allegedly prioritized personal interests over constitutional obligations, compromising the integrity of their positions.
Emphasizing that constitutional governance should not be subject to individual convenience, the court stated that the state apparatus must remain accountable to the law and the Constitution of India, rather than any political establishment. As an example of police impunity, the court cited the Bikru village raid targeting deceased gangster Vikas Dubey, which resulted in the deaths of eight police personnel, including a Deputy Superintendent of Police. The officer in charge received only a formal caution, a response the court found disproportionately lenient.
Advocate Ronak Chaturvedi represented the petitioners, while Additional Advocate Generals Anoop Trivedi and Paritosh Kumar Malviya appeared for the State.
