The Allahabad High Court observed that the State should adopt the doctrine of “superior responsibility,” holding senior bureaucrats accountable, and in appropriate cases criminally liable, for failing to prevent or punish misconduct by subordinates, stressing stronger administrative accountability and governance reforms.
The Allahabad High Court has observed that the time has come for the State to adopt the doctrine of “superior responsibility” under which senior bureaucrats may be held accountable, and in appropriate cases even criminally responsible, for failing to prevent or punish misconduct committed by their subordinates.
While allowing a petition filed by businessman Avnesh Kumar Agarwal seeking renewal of his passport, Justice Vinod Diwakar made significant observations on bureaucratic accountability and the prolonged failure of the Uttar Pradesh administration to comply with earlier judicial directions relating to monitoring corruption investigations.
The case arose from an order passed by the Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Bareilly, rejecting Agarwal’s application for a No Objection Certificate (NOC) required for passport renewal. The petitioner challenged the order before the High Court.
Agarwal argued that two criminal cases registered against him in 2007 had remained pending for an extraordinarily long period. In one case, the investigation was still pending nearly two decades later, while in the other, a charge sheet had been filed only in 2024, almost 18 years after registration of the FIR.
He also pointed out that a Coordinate Bench of the High Court had already stayed proceedings arising from one of the FIRs after noting the enormous delay and the absence of material showing his involvement.
During the hearing, the Court examined compliance with its earlier judgment in Manish Kumar Singh v. State of U.P., which had directed the State Government to constitute a High-Powered Committee under the chairmanship of the Chief Secretary for monitoring investigations in corruption and cheating cases registered by government departments.
The earlier judgment had required the State to formulate guidelines to ensure time-bound investigations, create monitoring mechanisms, and establish accountability for officers responsible for delays. The Committee was expected to be constituted within six months.
However, the Court found that the High-Powered Committee was constituted only in December 2025, almost two years after the directions were issued and only after the present matter came before the Court.
The Court noted that the State Government has repeatedly declared a policy of zero tolerance towards corruption and has entrusted anti-corruption agencies with the responsibility of dealing firmly with corrupt officials. Yet, despite these declarations, compliance with the Court’s directions had remained pending for years.
Justice Diwakar observed,
“This Court continues to encounter frequent instances of non-compliance with its orders. The compliance of the directions issued in Manish Kumar Singh (supra) was rendered possible only by virtue of the intervention of this Court in the present case, and that too after an inordinate delay of two years.”
The Court further observed that several options were available to address such non-compliance, including contempt proceedings against the Chief Secretary, directing personal appearance of senior officials, fixing personal responsibility, imposing exemplary costs, and recording adverse remarks against erring officers.
However, the Court decided not to adopt any coercive measures at this stage because the High-Powered Committee had finally started functioning and had begun holding meetings.
In one of the most significant portions of the judgment, Justice Diwakar urged the State Government to consider a stronger framework of accountability within the bureaucracy.
The Court observed,
“The time has come for the State to evolve and adopt a doctrine of ‘superior responsibility’, whereby senior officers in an administrative hierarchy are held accountable- and, in appropriate cases, criminally responsible for their failure to prevent or punish acts of commission or omission by their subordinates.”
Explaining the concept further, the Court stated,
“The expression ‘failure to prevent’ must be understood to include ‘the failure to take timely administrative measures’ or ‘to report the matter to higher administrative authorities’.”
The judgment further stated,
“Senior officers must be held accountable for the conduct and performance of their subordinates, as it is both their professional and administrative responsibility to ensure the effective delivery of public services.”
The Court added that such accountability could extend to criminal liability where failures result in corruption, fraud, suppression of records, contempt of government orders, or failure to implement State policies and anti-corruption programmes.
The Court also expressed concern about what it described as a bureaucratic mindset resistant to accountability and excessive reliance on discretionary power.
According to the judgment,
“The apprehension of losing discretion may well be one of the principal drivers of ‘red-tapism’ in public administration.”
The Court emphasized that rules and regulations exist to limit unguided discretion and promote transparency, accountability and adherence to the rule of law.
On the issue of passport renewal, the Court noted that no response had been filed by the Regional Passport Authority, Bareilly, despite opportunities being granted.
Consequently, the High Court set aside the Special Judge’s order rejecting the NOC application and allowed the petition. The Court directed the Regional Passport Authority to renew the petitioner’s passport in accordance with the prescribed procedure.
Before concluding the matter, the Court directed the Registrar (Compliance) to send a certified copy of the judgment to the Chief Secretary, Uttar Pradesh. It also ordered that the judgment be placed before the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh for consideration of the concerns raised regarding bureaucratic accountability and implementation of anti-corruption measures.
Case Title: Avnesh Kumar Agarwal v. Union of India & 3 Others,