Allahabad High Court Issues Show-Cause Notice To Additional Chief Secretary (Home) For Repeated Non-Compliance With Its Order
Isabella Mariam
The Allahabad High Court Single Bench of Justice Vinod Diwakar has issued a show-cause notice to the State’s Additional Chief Secretary (Home) to explain the continued failure to provide the specific information earlier sought by the Court. The dispute stems from a challenge by persons proceeded against under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, who alleged misuse of police powers and raised questions over the delegation of authority in the commissionerate system for approving the gang chart. The Court fixed the matter for compliance on January 20, 2026, and directed transmission of its order to ensure compliance.
At the first listing on February 22, 2025, the applicants’ counsel raised issues alleging misuse of police powers in applying the Act to them. The State’s counsel sought time to place on record the notification concerning delegation of the District Magistrate’s powers to the Commissioner of Police for approval of a gang chart under the commissionerate system.
Thereafter, the Court called for a personal affidavit from the Additional Chief Secretary (Home) with reference to earlier orders. Affidavits were filed by the Additional Chief Secretary (Home) and the Commissioner of Police, Ghaziabad, but the Court recorded that the justification on the core issue was lacking. The matter was listed on multiple dates thereafter, including November 12 and November 27, 2025.
On November 12, 2025, the Additional Advocate General sought time to obtain departmental instructions on issues noted by the Court in an earlier order. Subsequently, the Court required further affidavits from a senior officer of the Home Department and from the Director General of Police (Prosecution). An affidavit filed by the Secretary (Home) described the commissionerate system as a national best practice adopted in certain districts, with the stated aim of achieving “zero tolerance” towards crime and criminals; the Court recorded that this affidavit did not meet the requirements set earlier.
The Court recorded that “In brief, the affidavit highlights the purported "noble objective" behind adopting the commissionerate system described as a national best practice in certain districts of the State of Uttar Pradesh, with the stated aim of achieving zero tolerance towards crime and criminals, on the lines of Delhi, Mumbai, Bengaluru, and Hyderabad, and this court has no quarrel on this, as earlier stated.” The Court then stated that “However, the said affidavit fails to satisfy the requirements of the order dated 27.11.2025 in its letter and spirit.”
On the affidavits filed on behalf of the Home Department, the Court observed: “Upon perusal of the affidavit(s) filed on behalf of the Home Department, it prima facie appears that the officer(s) concerned have either failed to advert to the order(s) rendered by this Court or have approached the matter in a lackadaisical manner.” It further recorded: “Such an approach seemingly proceeds on the erroneous assumption that the power to issue notifications, being vested in the executive branches, may be exercised without due application of mind, by resorting to unfettered discretion and without examining the consequential effects thereof.” The Court added: “While this Court refrains from delving into the reasons underlying such conduct, it cannot remain a mute spectator and would not hesitate to exercise the powers vested in it in the interest of the citizens of the State and for upholding the sanctity and authority of the judicial process.”
The Court stated: “This Court is mindful of the fact, even the most well-intentioned and ostensibly noble ideas are liable to miscarry when placed in the hands of poor administrators namely, those who are inadequately trained and lacking in institutional competence, yet highly ambitious and adept at manoeuvring constitutional authorities.” It also observed: “A fundamental flaw of traditional bureaucratic ethics lies in its tendency to treat morality as something external to the dayto-day practice of administration, rather than as an integral component of decision-making.”
On the exercise of delegated discretion and the legal basis of notifications, the Court recorded: “Discretion conferred on civil servants by the legislative wing of the Government is intended to be exercised strictly in furtherance of the policy and object underlying the statute.” It stated: “The policy and purpose of any gazette notification must, therefore, be ascertained by construing the parent enactment in the present case, the U.P. Gangsters Act as a whole.” The Court further observed: “Courts have had no difficulty in reasserting their rights to intervene in cases where administrative decisions are irrational, abusive and arbitrary.” It added: “Courts, in the other words, instead of acting as a guarantors of rule of law, have taken to outsourcing this obligation to the executive branch for effectively implementing the State policy, and not otherwise.”
The Court directed: “In view of the aforesaid deliberations, a 'show-cause notice' is hereby issued to the Additional Chief Secretary (Home), requiring him to explain the reasons and disclose the legal impediments, if any, which have resulted in the repeated failure of the Home Department to furnish the specific and pointed details sought by this Court through its orders passed from time to time. Put up this case as fresh on 20.01.2026 for compliance.”
“The Registrar (Compliance) is directed to transmit a copy of this order forthwith to the office of Additional Chief Secretary (Home) and learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State for ensuring necessary compliance.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Shri Ronak Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the applicants
For the Respondents: Shri Anoop Trivedi, learned Additional Advocate General; Shri Paritosh Kumar Malviya, learned A.G.A. for the State;
Case Title: Rajendra Tyagi And 2 Others Versus State of U.P. and Another
Case Number: APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6547 of 2025
Bench: Justice Vinod Diwakar
