Supreme Court stays adverse Allahbad High Court order against senior IAS officer

The Supreme Court on Thursday (June 11, 2026) stayed an Allahabad High Court order containing adverse remarks against senior IAS officer Sanjay Prasad, Additional Chief Secretary to the Uttar Pradesh government, and directing the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) to examine his suitability for future assignments by the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet.

A Bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Atul S. Chandurkar passed the interim order while issuing notice on a plea filed by Mr. Prasad challenging the findings and directions issued by the High Court in its June 3 ruling.

“Issue notice, returnable in 10 weeks. In the meanwhile, directions issued by the High Court under the impugned order shall remain stayed,” the Bench said.

The High Court was hearing a habeas corpus petition filed by Jhansi resident Megha Raikwar seeking the recovery of her 15-year-old daughter from the alleged illegal custody of the respondent.

During the proceedings, the court was informed that a First Information Report had been registered and a chargesheet filed. Ms. Raikwar, however, contended that the investigation had failed to identify the “real” accused and that the chargesheet was filed largely on the basis of statements made by the accused persons themselves.

‘Directions not followed’

The High Court subsequently found that the chargesheet had not been filed in compliance with the directions issued in its judgment in Subhash Chandra & Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh, which laid down detailed guidelines to ensure that criminal investigations are fair and legally sustainable. It therefore called for an explanation from the Home Department.

In its affidavit, the State government informed the High Court that it intended to challenge the Subhash Chandra judgment before the Supreme Court and requested that no further adverse orders be passed until the proposed appeal was filed.

The court accordingly deferred the matter and awaited an update on the proposed challenge. However, despite the passage of more than three months since the affidavit was filed and over a year since the Subhash Chandra judgment was delivered, the State had yet to approach the Supreme Court.

Taking exception to the delay, Justice Vinod Diwakar observed that the proposed appeal was being used to justify inaction on the implementation of the court’s directions, despite no challenge having been filed before the Supreme Court for over a year.

In its order, the High Court observed that “unbridled” and “unchecked” discretion vested in civil servants undermines the rule of law and weakens accountability in public administration.

“Superior officers must be held accountable for the conduct and performance of their subordinates as it is their professional and administrative responsibility to ensure effective delivery of public services,” the court said. It added that such responsibility could also extend to incurring criminal liability where a failure to prevent or address misconduct by subordinates results in offences such as corruption, fraud or contempt of lawful orders.

The High Court further recommended that the DoPT evolve a doctrine of “superior responsibility” to hold senior officers accountable for failing to prevent or act against misconduct by subordinates. It also directed that the matter be placed before the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet to examine Mr. Prasad’s suitability for future assignments.

In his plea challenging the order before the top court, Mr. Prasad submitted that the High Court had gone beyond the relief sought in the petition and made adverse remarks against him without any basis or justification.