The Allahabad High Court recently censured Uttar Pradesh Additional Chief Secretary (Home) Sanjay Prasad for attempting to stop it from ensuring enforcement of its earlier directions on police reforms and investigative safeguards in the State.

Justice Vinod Diwakar said that the implementation of police reforms suggested by the Court has repeatedly met resistance at the administrative level in UP.

“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 said.

In this regard, the Court adversely commented on the conduct of Prasad, who is a 1995-batch IAS officer. It said there was an “apparent reluctance” on his part to facilitate and effectively implement measures aimed at improving investigative standards and ensuring compliance with judicial directions.

“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 Bench said.

Prasad is considered to be Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath’s most trusted and powerful bureaucrat.

The Court made the observations while dealing with a habeas corpus petition moved by a woman for custody of her minor daughter, who was allegedly enticed away by a man. After the police failed to recover her, the victim’s mother moved the High Court.

Finding that the investigating officer had failed to conduct a fair, impartial and effective investigation in the case, the Court examined whether the police was following the directions issued by it in Subhash Chandra & Others v. State of UP & Another to improve investigations in the State.

When the Court asked the ACS Prasad to explain the reasons for persistent non-compliance with the directions, it was told that the State has decided to challenge the directions issued in Subhash Chandra. The affidavit filed by the Secretary (Home) thus urged the Court to refrain from passing any further orders for implementation of the earlier directions. 

In the order passed on June 3, the High Court said that the directions issued in Subhash Chandra in May 2025 were not challenged for almost a year after pronouncement. It was only after an explanation was sought from the ACS (Home) that the decision was taken to challenge the judgment in the Supreme Court, the Court noted.

The Court said that it had deferred the matter to await further information about the proposed SLP, but even after 3 months, no order or judgment of the Supreme Court was produced by the State.

Justice Diwakar said that while the State has a right to appeal before the Supreme Court, such decision cannot be motivated by personal reasons of ACS (Home).

“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."

Considering the sequence of events in the case, the Court said that it was difficult to overlook ACS Prasad’s conduct.

“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,” it added.

The Court emphasised that the objective of police reforms is not to diminish the authority of the executive over police administration, but to ensure that investigations are conducted in a fair manner. 

“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 Court also went on to comment on the bureaucracy's role in governance, stating that giving unbridled discretion to officers sometimes undermines the rule of law. It said that superior officers must be held accountable for the conduct and performance of their subordinates, as it is their professional and administrative responsibility to ensure the effective delivery of public services. 

“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,” the Bench said in a suggestion to the Union government.

Looking at Prasad’s conduct in the case, the Court directed the Secretary, Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT), Government of India to keep its findings on record and consider them while evaluating the 1995-batch IAS officer's suitability for future assignments.

“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 Bench said. 

Advocate Raghvendra Yadav appeared for the petitioner.

Additional Advocate General MC Chaturvedi represented the State along with Additional Government Advocate Vibhav Anand Singh.

[Read Judgment]