The Supreme Court on Thursday stayed an Allahabad High Court verdict that had censured Uttar Pradesh Additional Chief Secretary (Home) Sanjay Prasad for allegedly obstructing the implementation of police reforms in the state, while making adverse remarks against him.
The Bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Atul S Chandurkar stayed the operation of the directions requiring the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) to take into account the High Court’s findings against the senior bureaucrat.
The interim order was passed on an application filed by Prasad. The 1995-batch IAS officer is widely regarded as one of Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath’s closest and most influential administrative aides.
On June 3, the single-judge Bench of Justice Vinod Diwakar had expressed serious concern over what was described as repeated administrative resistance to judicially mandated police reforms in the state. It observed that Prasad’s conduct prima facie appeared to constitute a deliberate and calculated attempt to undermine the authority of the Court. It further noted that efforts aimed at strengthening the quality, fairness and accountability of criminal investigations had repeatedly encountered resistance at the administrative level.
According to the High Court, the material placed on record indicated that judicial initiatives intended to improve investigative standards and ensure greater accountability within the criminal justice system had not received the institutional support ordinarily expected from authorities entrusted with civil administration.
In particular, the Court found an apparent reluctance on the part of Prasad to facilitate and effectively implement measures designed to improve police investigations and secure compliance with judicial directions. The Court observed that if such conduct remained unaddressed, it could render orders of constitutional courts ineffective and create an undesirable precedent regarding executive compliance with judicial directives concerning police reforms and accountability.
The observations were made in proceedings arising out of a habeas corpus petition filed by a woman seeking custody of her minor daughter, who was allegedly lured away by a man. After the police failed to trace and recover the child, the mother approached the High Court seeking judicial intervention.
While examining the matter, the Court found deficiencies in the investigation and concluded that the investigating officer had failed to conduct a fair, impartial and effective probe. This prompted the Court to examine whether directions issued in the earlier decision of Subhash Chandra & Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another for improving investigative practices in the State were being properly implemented.
When the Court sought an explanation from Prasad regarding the alleged persistent non-compliance with those directions, it was informed through an affidavit that the State government had decided to challenge the Subhash Chandra judgment before the Supreme Court. The affidavit urged the High Court not to issue any further directions for the implementation of the earlier ruling.
In its June 3 verdict, however, the High Court noted that the directions issued in Subhash Chandra in May 2025 had remained unchallenged for nearly a year. The Court observed that the decision to file a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court was taken only after explanations were sought from the Additional Chief Secretary (Home) regarding compliance with the verdict.
The High Court further recorded that it had deferred consideration of the matter to await information regarding the proposed challenge before the Supreme Court. However, even after three months, no order or judgment from the Apex Court was produced before it by the state authorities.
Justice Diwakar acknowledged that the state possessed a statutory and constitutional right to challenge judicial decisions before the Supreme Court. However, the Court cautioned that such a decision could not be influenced by personal considerations attributable to any individual officer.
Having examined the sequence of events, the High Court concluded that it was difficult to overlook Prasad’s conduct in the matter. It emphasised that the objective of police reforms was not to curtail executive authority over police administration but to ensure fair, professional and legally compliant investigations in accordance with constitutional principles.
The Court observed that resistance to measures aimed at improving investigative standards would be inconsistent with the constitutional mandate of upholding the rule of law and strengthening public confidence in the criminal justice system. In view of its findings, the High Court directed the Secretary, DoPT, Government of India, to place its observations on record and consider them while evaluating the future suitability of the 1995-batch IAS officer for public assignments and administrative responsibilities.
The post Supreme Court stays Allahabad High Court verdict censuring senior UP bureaucrat over implementation of police reforms appeared first on India Legal.