The Allahabad High Court criticised Uttar Pradesh Additional Chief Secretary (Home) Sanjay Prasad for allegedly obstructing police reform measures and investigative safeguards, observing that resistance by administrative authorities risks undermining judicial directions, accountability mechanisms, and efforts to strengthen the criminal justice system.
The Allahabad High Court recently criticised Uttar Pradesh Additional Chief Secretary (Home) Sanjay Prasad for allegedly obstructing the implementation of judicial directions aimed at improving police investigations and accountability in the State. The Court observed that repeated efforts to introduce investigative reforms in Uttar Pradesh have encountered resistance at the administrative level, undermining the effectiveness of judicial interventions intended to strengthen the criminal justice system.
Justice Vinod Diwakar made the observations while hearing a habeas corpus petition filed by a woman seeking the recovery and custody of her minor daughter, who was allegedly enticed away by a man. Dissatisfied with the manner in which the investigation was conducted, the Court expanded the scope of its scrutiny to examine whether earlier directions issued by it regarding police reforms were being properly implemented by the State authorities.
Background Details and Court’s Observation
The proceedings arose from a petition filed by a mother after law enforcement authorities allegedly failed to trace and recover her minor daughter. During the hearing, the Court found significant shortcomings in the investigation carried out by the concerned police officials.
Justice Diwakar noted that the investigating officer had failed to conduct a fair, impartial and effective investigation. This prompted the Court to revisit its earlier judgment in Subhash Chandra & Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, delivered in May 2025, where a series of directions had been issued to improve the quality, transparency and accountability of criminal investigations across the State.
While reviewing compliance with those directions, the Court found that implementation had remained inadequate despite the passage of considerable time.
Expressing concern over the situation, the Court observed:
“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.”
The Bench noted that measures designed to improve investigative standards and ensure adherence to constitutional principles appeared to have faced persistent resistance from sections of the State administration.
Particular attention was drawn to the role of Additional Chief Secretary (Home) Sanjay Prasad, a senior IAS officer of the 1995 batch who is widely regarded as one of the most influential bureaucrats in Uttar Pradesh. The Court observed that there appeared to be an “apparent reluctance” on his part to facilitate the effective implementation of judicial directives concerning police reforms and investigative safeguards.
The High Court cautioned that non-compliance with judicial directions by administrative authorities could seriously undermine the authority of constitutional courts and the rule of law.
In a sharp observation, the Bench stated:
“Such conduct, if left unaddressed, would have the effect of rendering the orders of Constitutional Courts nugatory at the hands of recalcitrant administrative officers and would set a pernicious precedent for the manner in which judicial directions concerning accountability and police reforms may be treated by the executive. This Court cannot be a silent spectator to such conduct.”
The Court stressed that allowing administrative resistance to judicial mandates would weaken public confidence in governance and the criminal justice system.
During the proceedings, the Court sought an explanation from the Additional Chief Secretary (Home) regarding the continued failure to implement the directions issued in Subhash Chandra. In response, the State informed the Court that it had decided to challenge the earlier judgment before the Supreme Court and requested that no further directions be issued for its implementation.
However, the High Court found the explanation unsatisfactory. Justice Diwakar noted that the judgment in Subhash Chandra had remained unchallenged for nearly a year after it was delivered. According to the Court, the decision to approach the Supreme Court was taken only after questions were raised regarding non-compliance by the Home Department.
The Court further observed that despite granting time and awaiting information regarding the proposed Special Leave Petition (SLP), no order from the Supreme Court had been placed on record even after three months. The Bench emphasised that while the State possesses a legitimate right to challenge judicial decisions before higher courts, such actions must be guided by institutional considerations rather than personal motivations of individual officers.
Making a significant observation regarding the conduct of senior bureaucrats, the Court said:
“The ACS (Home)…while being a senior officer in the administrative hierarchy, occupies a supervisory and coordinating role. His approval or concurrence in filing litigation is part of the internal administrative process. However, when this approval is motivated not by a genuine assessment of institutional grievance, but by personal satisfaction – a desire to vindicate a personal position, settle a personal score, or see an adversarial proceeding through its conclusion regardless of merit the character of the litigation fundamentally change.”
The Court remarked that the sequence of events gave rise to concerns regarding the bona fides behind the decision to challenge the earlier judgment.
According to the Bench:
“The conduct of incumbent ACS (Home) gives rise to a reasonable apprehension that the proposed Special Leave Petition was relied upon as a justification for postponing scrutiny of the continued non-compliance of the directions issued by this Court, rather than as a bona fide and diligent effort to obtain an authoritative determination from the Supreme Court at the earliest opportunity.”
The High Court clarified that the objective behind its directions on police reforms was not to interfere with executive control over law enforcement agencies. Instead, the reforms were intended to ensure fairness, professionalism and accountability in criminal investigations.
The Court observed:
“Any resistance to measures designed to achieve these objectives would be inconsistent with the constitutional mandate of ensuring the rule of law and strengthening public confidence in the criminal justice system.”
The Bench reiterated that effective investigations form the backbone of a functioning criminal justice system and are essential for protecting citizens’ rights. The judgment also contains broader observations regarding the role and accountability of bureaucrats in governance.
Justice Diwakar noted that excessive discretion vested in administrative officers can sometimes weaken institutional accountability and adversely affect implementation of government policies and judicial directions.
The Court emphasised that senior officers must bear responsibility for the actions and performance of their subordinates. Going a step further, the Bench suggested that in certain circumstances administrative failures could potentially attract legal consequences.
The Court observed:
“Such responsibility may be elevated to criminal liability, where the failure to prevent or punish subordinate misconduct leads to criminal acts such as corruption, fraud, wilful suppression, contempt of Government Orders and Gazette Notifications, and the failure to implement ‘State Policy’ and ‘Programs’, such as zero tolerance towards organised, institutionalised corruption- whether corruption of the mind, whereby the decision-making process is deliberately perverted to serve private ends under the guise of official authority, or corruption of the purse, whereby public office is converted into an instrument of personal pecuniary gain.”
Taking serious note of the matter, the High Court directed that a copy of its order, along with its earlier judgment in Subhash Chandra, be forwarded to the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT), Government of India. The DoPT functions as the cadre controlling authority for IAS officers.
The Court directed:
“It is directed that the Registrar (Compliance) of this Court shall transmit a certified copy of the present order and the order passed by this Court in Subhash Chandra (supra) to the Secretary, Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT), Government of India, being the Cadre Controlling Authority of Shri Sanjay Prasad, IAS (DR 1995), for their record, reference, and such consideration as may be deemed appropriate in the context of the assessment of the said officer’s suitability for future assignments by the Appointment Committee of the Cabinet (ACC).”
The order marks one of the strongest judicial observations made recently against a senior serving bureaucrat in Uttar Pradesh and underscores the Court’s insistence on accountability, adherence to judicial directions, and meaningful implementation of police reforms aimed at improving the administration of criminal justice.
Case Title: MR v State of UP and 4 Others
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE