Allahabad High Court Flags ‘Disdain’ for Court Orders by UP Home Dept in Elderly Woman Protection Plea

The Allahabad High Court recently pulled up the Uttar Pradesh government for failing to comply with its directions in a case concerning protection of a vulnerable senior citizen, observing that the conduct of the state’s Principal Secretary (Home) reflected “absolute disdain” for court’s order.

"Every direction passed by the court has to be complied with unless it is impossible or it has been stayed by a superior court," court said.

A bench of Justices Atul Sreedharan and Siddharth Nandan was hearing a writ petition filed by 80-year-old Gulab Kali, who alleged that certain persons were attempting to dispossess her of her ancestral abadi land in Prayagraj.

The petitioner told the court that she lived alone with her two granddaughters, one of whom was physically disabled, and there was no male member in the household. She also stated that she was suffering from ill health and feared illegal attempts to take over her property.

During earlier proceedings on January 28, 2026, the high court had sought a response from the Principal Secretary (Home), asking what powers and measures a district magistrate can exercise to protect the life and property of senior citizens, particularly those in vulnerable circumstances.

Court said the issue assumed significance in light of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 and the increasing number of petitions filed by elderly persons seeking protection from dispossession and harassment. Court wanted to ascertain whether guidelines could be laid down permanently in order to give effect to the special statute.

That order was uploaded on the court’s website and made available to the Advocate General’s office on February 2, which immediately communicated the direction to the office of the Principal Secretary (Home). However, when the matter came up again, the affidavit sought by the court had not been filed. Instead, instructions were sent on February 12 asking the state counsel to seek additional time.

Taking serious note of the lapse, the bench said the request for extension of time was “completely bereft of any specific reasons” and did not disclose what steps had been taken to comply with the earlier order.

The judges observed that if there was a genuine difficulty in complying with the direction, the authority should have filed a brief application supported by an affidavit explaining the reasons.

Court stated that authorities faced with judicial directions have three options: comply with the order, seek additional time through a reasoned affidavit, or be prepared to face consequences including coercive proceedings initiated by the court.

The bench added that directions requiring personal appearance of officials are often issued only when bureaucratic authorities fail to take court orders seriously.

"The court is cognizent of the inconvenience caused to the officials when they are asked to appear before this court in person, but such a direction is given more out of helplessness," the bench said.

While expressing its displeasure, court nevertheless granted the state seven days’ time to comply with the earlier order.

The bench also expanded the scope of the proceedings by impleading the Secretary of the Department of Social Justice and Empowerment, Government of India, and the Principal Secretary of the Social Welfare Department, Uttar Pradesh, as additional respondents. The Principal Secretary (Social Welfare) was directed to file an affidavit explaining the steps taken under Section 22(2) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. If any standard operating procedure has already been framed to implement the provision, the same must be placed before the court as an annexure, court ordered.

In the meantime, court issued interim directions to ensure the petitioner’s safety.

Court directed the District Magistrate, Prayagraj to obtain a report from the Station House Officer of Police Station Utraon regarding the petitioner’s situation. Court also directed the SHO to personally interact with the petitioner and assess whether armed police protection is necessary. The officer was asked to ensure that a lady official accompanies him during the interaction.

Court further directed the district magistrate to file a personal affidavit before the court detailing the steps taken to ensure protection of the petitioner.

The matter is listed for further hearing on March 10, 2026.

Case Title: Gulab Kali vs State of Uttar Pradesh and 3 Others

Order Date: February 17, 2026

Bench: Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Siddharth Nandan