The Allahabad High Court, in a scathing judgment, has taken strong exception to the inefficiencies and negligence displayed by the police and government advocates in executing judicial orders. The case, Application U/S 482 No. 42213 of 2024, filed by Shanu Saxena and Another vs. State of U.P. and Others, came up for hearing before Justice Manju Rani Chauhan. The judgment exposes serious lapses in compliance with judicial directives and procedural integrity within the legal system.
Background of the Case
The case pertains to the failure of police officials in serving summons and executing judicial directives, leading to delays in legal proceedings. The Court, in an earlier order dated January 31, 2025, had directed the Superintendent of Police, Fatehpur, Mr. Dhawal Jaiswal, to appear in person and submit a personal affidavit explaining the lapses. This order was issued in light of the Court’s previous ruling in Vijay Kushwaha and Others v. State of U.P., which had similarly highlighted systemic failures.
Upon submission of the compliance affidavit, the Court found it unsatisfactory, prompting further scrutiny of the conduct of Mr. A.K. Sand, the learned Government Advocate, and his office.
Key Legal Issues Involved
- Failure of the Police in Executing Judicial Orders: The Court expressed grave concern over the persistent failure of law enforcement officers to fulfill their statutory duties, stating:“Their apathy and inefficiency contribute to unwarranted delays, exacerbating the already staggering backlog of cases and severely hampering the expeditious dispensation of justice.”
- Misrepresentation and Procedural Impropriety in Filing Affidavits: The affidavit submitted was dictated by the Government Advocate, Mr. A.K. Sand, yet the first page was altered under the direction of Mr. Ghanshyam Kushwaha, Private Secretary to the Government Advocate, misleading the Court about the author of its contents. The judgment pointed out:“Such manipulation of official records not only reflected an improper delegation of authority but also highlighted a blatant disregard for procedural propriety within the office of the Government Advocate.”
- Negligence and Lack of Awareness Among Government Lawyers: The Court was particularly disturbed by the fact that neither the Superintendent of Police nor the Government Advocate was aware of the earlier judgment in Vijay Kushwaha’s case, which was directly relevant to the matter at hand. The judgment observed:“This habitual passing of responsibility from one officer to another exposes a lack of coordination and diligence within the government’s legal apparatus and reflects a deeper issue of institutional apathy toward judicial orders.”
Court’s Observations and Directives
The Court minced no words in condemning the conduct of the responsible officers. It noted:
“The judiciary, despite its best efforts, cannot function effectively in isolation; it relies on the seamless coordination of various stakeholders, including the police, to uphold the principles of justice. The failure of the police fosters a perception of institutional indifference and inefficacy, shaking the very foundation of public trust in the justice delivery mechanism.”
Taking serious note of the fraudulent alteration of the affidavit, the Court found that Mr. Ghanshyam Kushwaha’s act amounted to fraud upon the Court. It held that the role of a Private Secretary is purely clerical and does not extend to substantive legal matters.
The Court directed the Superintendent of Police, Fatehpur, to remain present in the next hearing on March 12, 2025, and granted time for a revised, comprehensive affidavit. The Registrar (Compliance) was instructed to communicate the order to Mr. A.K. Sand, Government Advocate, forthwith.
