‘Police Must Wear Proper Uniform in Court’: Allahabad High Court Slams Officer for Casual Dress
The Allahabad High Court recently came down heavily on a police officer of the Uttar Pradesh Anti-Corruption Organization for appearing before it in casual clothes, terming the conduct a violation of the decorum of the court.
Court directed the Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh, to issue clear guidelines ensuring that all police personnel attend court in prescribed uniforms while discharging official duties.
The incident occurred during a hearing in a bail matter involving Sub-Inspector Shakeel Ahmad, who was accused of demanding a bribe and allegedly caught red-handed in a trap operation on February 22, 2025. As the case progressed, the court had summoned Inspector Krishna Mohan Rai—who is the investigating officer in the corruption case—to appear in person with the case diary and assist the prosecution.
However, when Inspector Rai appeared on May 29, 2025, he was dressed in a coloured shirt and trousers, not his official police uniform. The Additional Government Advocate informed the bench that when objected to, Rai became angry and behaved inappropriately. This prompted Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh to take serious note of the officer’s conduct in open court.
“The police officers are expected to wear the prescribed uniform while appearing before courts,” the order read. “The appearance of any police officer wearing casual civil clothes in court proceedings amounts to violation of the decorum of the court and undermines the court proceedings,” the judge noted, issuing a warning to the officer to remain cautious in the future.
Importantly, court also directed the DGP to issue formal instructions to all officers that whenever they appear before any court in their official capacity, proper uniform must be worn. The registrar was also directed to forward the order to the police chief within a week, and the DGP was asked to confirm compliance within six weeks via the Registrar General of the High Court.
The matter before the court also involved serious procedural lapses by the Anti-Corruption Organization. The bail applicant, Shakeel Ahmad, had argued that he was never the investigating officer in the original FIR concerning illegal mining, from which the bribery allegation arose. Court found merit in his contention, noting that no case diary entry had been made by Ahmad, and that the investigating officer had failed to fairly verify this fact before proceeding with action.
Court opined that Ahmad had made a prima facie case for bail and ordered his release on personal bond with conditions to cooperate in the trial and abstain from influencing witnesses or indulging in any criminal activity.
Case Title: Shakeel Ahmad vs State of UP
Download order here