The Supreme Court on Thursday stayed a Allahabad High Court judgment against Uttar Pradesh Additional Chief Secretary (Home) Sanjay Prasad IAS whom the High Court had censured for attempting to stop police reforms.
A bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Atul Chandurkar passed the stay order on an appeal filed by Prasad.
Prasad is considered to be Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath’s most trusted and powerful bureaucrat.
The High Court had said that its judgment be forwarded to the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) for consideration while assessing Prasad's suitability for future assignments.
The top court today stayed these directions.
The judgment under challenge was delivered by Justice Vinod Diwakar of High Court on June 3.
He held that the conduct of Prasad prima facie appeared to be a "deliberate and calculated attempt" to undermine the authority of the court.
Justice 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 High Court said.
In this regard, the High Court adversely commented on the conduct of Prasad, 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.
The High 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).
Considering the sequence of events in the case, the Court said that it was difficult to overlook Prasad’s conduct.
The High 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."
Looking at Prasad’s conduct in the case, the High 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.
[Read Live Coverage]