The Allahabad High Court has delivered a sharp indictment of the functioning of the Uttar Pradesh Police, observing that a culture of political patronage has eroded constitutional governance and encouraged officers to prioritise loyalty to those in power over fidelity to the Constitution.
Hearing a matter connected to the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Justice Vinod Diwakar painted a grim picture of the State’s administrative and policing framework. The Court remarked that Uttar Pradesh has long been burdened by a feudal style of governance in which public institutions are often treated as instruments of control rather than vehicles of public service.
According to the Court, the influence of politics has seeped deeply into the State’s administrative machinery across successive governments. Transfers, postings and promotions, it observed, frequently function as tools of political reward and punishment rather than mechanisms rooted in merit and professional competence.
The judgment noted that officers perceived to be politically dependable are often entrusted with influential assignments and prized districts, while those who display independence risk being shifted to less significant posts. This environment, the Court said, creates a system in which officials tailor their conduct to satisfy political expectations rather than constitutional obligations.
Justice Diwakar further observed that concerns regarding police encounters, selective enforcement actions and the use of stringent laws against individuals viewed as inconvenient have repeatedly drawn judicial scrutiny. The Court said such practices reflect a troubling tendency among officers to align themselves vertically with the ruling establishment instead of the constitutional framework they are sworn to uphold.
In some of its strongest observations, the Bench stated that a significant section of the police hierarchy treats the rule of law as an obstacle rather than a binding obligation. The Court highlighted instances where arrests are allegedly carried out without adherence to legal safeguards, First Information Reports are either registered or withheld for questionable reasons, and preventive detention laws are invoked in an arbitrary manner.
The judgment also criticised what it described as routine disregard for procedural protections under criminal law. While judicial directions may be formally complied with, the Court said their substantive purpose is often undermined.
Although the Supreme Court is presently examining issues relating to the Gangsters Act, prompting the High Court to refrain from issuing a final ruling on those broader questions, Justice Diwakar nevertheless used the occasion to underscore systemic concerns surrounding the exercise of police powers in the State.
The Court also turned its attention to the functioning of the Home Department, urging the State government to independently assess the effectiveness and suitability of officers entrusted with key responsibilities. It expressed concern that some officials who occupied the post of Home Secretary appeared to have allowed considerations beyond constitutional and administrative principles to influence decisions on postings, disciplinary matters and responses before courts.
The Bench stressed that constitutional governance cannot be subordinated to personal convenience or political expediency, emphasising that every arm of the State must remain accountable to the law and the Constitution rather than to any government of the day.
As an illustration of institutional shortcomings, the Court referred to the infamous Bikru village operation targeting gangster Vikas Dubey, during which eight police personnel, including a Deputy Superintendent of Police, lost their lives. Justice Diwakar noted that the supervisory officer associated with the operation reportedly received only a formal warning despite the gravity of the failure.
The Court questioned how such a limited consequence could be reconciled with the seriousness of the incident, observing that a culture of impunity within institutions enables officials to avoid accountability and perpetuates an administrative structure shaped by political influence and feudal attitudes.
The petition before the Court was argued on behalf of the petitioners by advocate Ronak Chaturvedi, while the State was represented by Additional Advocate General Anoop Trivedi along with Additional Advocate General Paritosh Kumar Malviya.
