Allahabad HC slams UP police; says cops serve rulers, not Constitution
text_fields
Allahabad: The Allahabad High Court ripped the Uttar Pradesh Police over a pattern of “encounter killings, selective crackdowns and targeted use of the Gangsters Act against inconvenient individuals”
The court criticised the functioning of the Police observing that many officers appear more committed to serving the interests of the ruling establishment than upholding constitutional principles. The court also remarked that the state's administrative machinery has often operated as a tool of personal and political control rather than public service, Siasat Daily reported.
The observations were made by Justice Vinod Diwakar while hearing a case involving the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. Although the larger legal issues concerning the Act remain under consideration by the Supreme Court, the judge used the proceedings to comment on broader concerns regarding governance and policing in the state.
The court stated that transfers, postings, and promotions within the Uttar Pradesh Police have frequently been influenced by political considerations. According to the judgment, officers perceived as loyal to those in power are often rewarded with desirable assignments, while those demonstrating independence may be sidelined through less significant postings.
Justice Diwakar observed that many officers tend to align their conduct with the expectations of political superiors, largely because of the influence of the transfer and posting system. The court further noted that allegations relating to encounter killings, selective enforcement actions, and the targeted use of the Gangsters Act against certain individuals had repeatedly attracted judicial scrutiny.
The judgment also expressed concern over procedural violations in law enforcement. It stated that FIRs are sometimes registered or withheld for improper reasons, arrests are occasionally carried out without following due process, and preventive detention laws have been invoked arbitrarily. The court remarked that a significant section of the police leadership treats the rule of law as an obstacle rather than a constitutional obligation, and that judicial directions are often followed only superficially.
The High Court extended its criticism to the office of the State Home Secretary, stating that some officials who held the post had effectively acted in pursuit of personal or extraneous interests. It observed that decisions regarding transfers, disciplinary proceedings, and responses to court matters had, in some cases, been influenced by considerations unrelated to public administration. The state government was directed to independently assess the competence and effectiveness of officers serving in the department.
To illustrate what it described as a culture of impunity, the court referred to the Bikru village ambush of 2020, in which eight police personnel, including a Deputy Superintendent of Police, were killed while attempting to arrest gangster Vikas Dubey. The court noted that the officer responsible for supervising the operation received only a formal warning, a response it considered difficult to reconcile with the seriousness of the failure involved.
According to the judgment, such instances reflect a broader pattern of unaccountability that enables a politically patronised and feudal administrative culture to persist. The court concluded by stressing that the state's constitutional institutions must remain accountable to the law and the Constitution rather than to any government or ruling political establishment.