'Did Not Even Care About Court Directions': Allahabad High Court Seeks UP Chief Secretary's Affidavit, Issues Show Cause to ACS (Home)

The Allahabad High Court has sought a personal affidavit from Uttar Pradesh Chief Secretary and directed the Additional Chief Secretary (Home) to explain why action should not be taken against him, after finding his affidavit in a monitored criminal investigation to be "completely casual" and lacking seriousness.

The bench of Justices Abdul Moin and Pramod Kumar Srivastava passed the order while hearing a petition filed by Gayatri Devi seeking a fair investigation into an FIR registered at PGI police station, Lucknow, in January 2025.    

Court was examining the progress of the investigation after repeatedly expressing concern over delays in the case and the failure of authorities to act despite earlier assurances given to the court.

Also Read|UP's 'Zero Tolerance' Policy on Corruption: Allahabad High Court Flags Delay, Order to Be Placed Before CM Yogi Adityanath

The bench noted that despite being granted an opportunity through an earlier order, the Additional Chief Secretary (Home) had failed to satisfactorily address concerns raised by the court regarding the investigation.

Observing that the officer had "apparently failed to redress himself", court said his conduct prima facie suggested that he did not even care about the directions issued by the court.

The bench therefore directed the Chief Secretary to personally explain the inconsistencies highlighted by the court and also respond to concerns earlier flagged in its April 29 order.

Court further directed the Additional Chief Secretary (Home) to file a show-cause reply explaining why action should not be recommended against him under the applicable service rules. It warned that if the reply is not filed, he would have to appear personally before the court along with the records.

What Prompted The Court's Sharp Remarks?

The petition concerns an FIR lodged on January 9, 2025. Earlier proceedings showed that on May 23, 2025, the Investigating Officer had assured the high court that the petitioner's grievances would be addressed within three days.

Also Read| UP Gangsters Act Misused? Allahabad High Court Pulls Up Former Ghaziabad Police Commissioner

However, when the matter was taken up again, court found that more than a year had passed and the petitioner continued to seek redress.

In a previous order reproduced in the judgment, the bench had remarked that the authorities appeared to be "sitting and twiddling their thumbs day in and day out" despite the case being under judicial scrutiny.

Court had also observed that although serious penal provisions had been added against several accused persons, the investigation had not been taken to its logical conclusion.

According to the affidavit placed before the court, two accused persons, Gaurav Awasthi and Sarvesh Kumar Pandey, were arrested only in April 2026, while four other accused persons remained untraced.

The bench noted that these arrests took place only after it passed a detailed order on April 13, 2026.

"This itself speaks volumes about the conduct and about the quality of the investigation on the part of the respondent-authorities," the court observed.

Why Did The Court Object To A Senior Police Officer's Presence?

The bench also took exception to the appearance of Deputy Commissioner of Police (South), Lucknow, Amit Kumar Aanand.

The officer informed the court that he had appeared pursuant to a letter issued by Special Secretary Mahendra Singh directing him to remain present and explain the progress of the investigation.

The high court noted that its previous order only required the filing of a personal affidavit by the Additional Chief Secretary (Home). Personal appearance had been directed only in the event that such an affidavit was not filed.

Also Read| Using ‘Hon’ble’ for Bureaucrats Undermines Courts, Constitution: Allahabad HC to UP Govt

Questioning the basis on which the police officer was summoned, court observed that he had to leave his office and miss scheduled public hearings because of the direction issued by the Special Secretary.

The bench said there was "no occasion" for the officer to appear before the court when no such direction had been issued judicially.

The Chief Secretary has now been asked to explain the circumstances under which the DCP was directed to appear and why action should not be taken against the Special Secretary for issuing such directions despite there being no court order requiring the officer's presence.

The matter has been listed for July 15, 2026. If the required affidavit is not filed, the Chief Secretary has been directed to appear personally before the court with the records.

Case Title: Gayatri Devi v. State of U.P. through Principal Secretary (Home), Lucknow and 11 Others

Order Date: May 20, 2026

Bench: Justice Abdul Moin and Justice Pramod Kumar Srivastava