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

Observing that corruption and administrative misconduct cannot be tackled without fixing responsibility at the top, the Allahabad High Court has asked the Uttar Pradesh Government to "evolve and adopt" a doctrine of "superior responsibility" under which senior bureaucrats are held accountable, and in appropriate cases criminally prosecuted, for failing to prevent or punish wrongdoing by their subordinates.

Stating that exceptional administrative failures require exceptional remedies, the court said senior officers cannot escape responsibility when corruption, fraud, suppression of records or non-implementation of government policies occurs within departments under their control.

It further remarked that a failure to prevent wrongdoing should include failure to take timely administrative action or failure to report the matter to higher authorities.

The observations came in a case filed by businessman Avnesh Kumar Agarwal, who challenged the rejection of a No Objection Certificate (NOC) required for renewal of his passport.

However, while hearing the matter, Justice Vinod Diwakar turned the spotlight on a larger issue: the State Government's delayed compliance with judicial directions aimed at improving monitoring of corruption investigations.

Court noted that the Uttar Pradesh Government repeatedly proclaims a policy of "zero tolerance" towards corruption. Yet, according to the judgment, implementation of measures intended to strengthen anti-corruption investigations remained stalled for nearly two years despite clear judicial directions.

Why Did The Allahabad High Court Raise Questions About Bureaucratic Accountability?

The answer lies in a previous judgment delivered by the high court in November 2023.

In Manish Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. (2023), a division bench had directed the State Government to constitute a High-Powered Committee headed by the Chief Secretary to monitor investigations in corruption and cheating cases registered by government departments and formulate comprehensive guidelines for their supervision.

The committee was expected to be constituted within six months.

However, Justice Diwakar found that the committee was actually constituted only in December 2025, nearly two years later and only after the present proceedings brought the issue back before the court.

Court recorded that compliance with the earlier directions became possible only because of judicial intervention in the present case. It described the delay as "inordinate" and expressed concern over recurring instances of non-compliance with court orders.

What Did The Court Say About The Bureaucracy?

In some of the sharpest observations in the judgment, court suggested that a section of the bureaucracy may be reluctant to surrender discretionary powers, leading to delays and administrative inefficiency.

Court observed that absolute and unchecked discretion breeds corruption and discrimination and is inconsistent with the rule of law. It further said that fear of losing discretionary power could be one of the principal causes of red-tapism in public administration.

Justice Diwakar remarked that rules and regulations exist precisely to limit unguided discretion and to ensure transparency, accountability and principled exercise of public power.

Court also noted that although it had the option of initiating contempt proceedings against the Chief Secretary, directing his personal appearance, imposing costs or fixing personal responsibility for the delay, it chose not to do so at this stage.

"Judicial restraint must not be mistaken for judicial indifference," court cautioned, while expressing hope that the State machinery would complete the pending exercise in a time-bound manner.

What Was The Passport Dispute Before The Court?

The petitioner had sought renewal of his passport but was denied an NOC by a Bareilly court because of two criminal cases registered against him in 2007.

The cases involve allegations of corruption, forgery, cheating and destruction of government records. The court noted that one investigation has remained pending for nearly two decades, while in another case the charge sheet was filed only in 2024, about 18 years after registration of the FIR. Proceedings in one of the cases had already been stayed by a coordinate bench.

Finding the rejection of the NOC unsustainable, the high court set aside the Special Judge's order and itself issued the NOC in favour of the petitioner.

Court directed the Regional Passport Authority, Bareilly, to renew the passport in accordance with law.

It further directed that a copy of the judgment be sent to the Chief Secretary for placing before Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath, while also ensuring that the High-Powered Committee completes its work and formulates a robust accountability mechanism for errant officers.

Case Title: Avnesh Kumar Agarwal vs. Union of India & 3 Ors

Order Date: June 03, 2026

Bench: Justice Vinod Diwakar