Supreme Court Stays Allahabad High Court Order Pulling Up Uttar Pradesh Chief Secretary Sanjay Prasad

The Supreme Court today stayed the Allahabad High Court's recent order observing that conduct of Uttar Pradesh Additional Chief Secretary (Home) Sanjay Prasad, IAS, prima facie appeared to be a "deliberate and calculated attempt" to undermine the authority of the court.

A bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Atul Chandurkar passed the stay order on an appeal filed by Prasad.

Earlier this month, holding that the conduct of Uttar Pradesh Additional Chief Secretary (Home) Sanjay Prasad, IAS, prima facie appeared to be a "deliberate and calculated attempt" to undermine the authority of the court, the Allahabad High Court has directed that a copy of its judgment be forwarded to the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) for consideration while assessing his suitability for future assignments by the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (ACC).

The observations came in a habeas corpus petition filed for the recovery of a missing minor girl from Jhansi, during which Justice Vinod Diwakar examined the State government's compliance with directions issued in an earlier judgment aimed at improving the quality and accountability of criminal investigations.

High Court had noted that although the State informed it in February this year that it had decided to challenge the May 2025 judgment in Subhash Chandra & Others v. State of U.P. & Another (2025) on police investigation reforms before the Supreme Court, no order showing that the challenge had been pursued or considered by the apex court was produced even after more than three months.

The case arose from an FIR lodged at Sipri Bazar police station in Jhansi after the minor girl went missing on June 10, 2025. During the hearing, the high court examined the investigation carried out by the local police and expressed concern over the manner in which the charge-sheet had been filed. Justice Diwakar observed that the investigation appeared to have been conducted primarily on the basis of statements of the accused and some witnesses who claimed that the girl had accompanied the accused and later boarded a train on her own. Court said the material before it prima facie suggested that the investigation had not been carried out in a fair, impartial and effective manner.

While scrutinising the charge-sheet, the high court found that the directions issued in its May 2025 judgment in Subhash Chandra did not appear to have been followed. The Subhash Chandra judgment had laid down detailed guidelines for criminal investigations and preparation of charge-sheets, including mandatory disclosures regarding the role of each accused, witness statements, forensic evidence, CCTV footage, call detail records, recoveries made during investigation and steps taken by investigating officers.

To assess whether the directions were being implemented across the State, the court called for charge-sheets from ten different districts. After examining them, court observed that compliance with the directions was not uniform and that the material placed before it reflected a lack of effective implementation at the field level. Court further noted that despite nearly a year having elapsed since the judgment, the mandate laid down in Subhash Chandra had not been effectively implemented and no adequate steps appeared to have been taken to ensure uniform compliance.

In an affidavit filed before the court, the Home Department stated that it had decided to challenge the Subhash Chandra judgment before the Supreme Court. Court, however, noted that no challenge had been filed for almost a year after the judgment was delivered on May 12, 2025. It further observed that the decision to approach the Supreme Court surfaced only after questions were raised regarding non-compliance with the judgment.

"The conduct of Shri Sanjay Prasad... prima facie reflects a deliberate and calculated attempt to undermine the authority of this court," the judge observed, adding that the officer had projected the proposed SLP as a ground for seeking restraint in enforcement of judicial directions while failing to pursue the remedy with diligence. Court said such conduct, if left unaddressed, could render orders of constitutional courts nugatory at the hands of recalcitrant administrative officers and set a harmful precedent in matters relating to accountability and police reforms.

Case Title: SANJAY PRASAD Vs MEGHA RAIKWAR

Bench: Justices PK Mishra and Atul Chandurkar

Hearing Date: June 11, 2026