Allahabad High Court urges CM Yogi to fix responsibility on senior officers for administrative failures
Prayagraj, June 4: In a significant order, the Allahabad High Court urged the Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath to recognize that the time has come to hold senior officers and top administrative officials accountable, even criminally responsible, for the lapses committed by their departments or those under them.
Justice Vinod Diwakar’s bench said the state should adopt the principle of “superior responsibility,” under which senior officers in the administrative hierarchy are held accountable.
The High Court further stated that, in appropriate cases, they should also be held criminally accountable for their failure to prevent or punish wrongdoings or omissions committed by their subordinates. In its 16-page order, the bench stated, “Senior officers must be held accountable for the conduct and performance of those under their command, as ensuring the effective delivery of public services is both their professional and administrative responsibility.”
The court warned against two distinct forms of institutional decay: “corruption of mind,” whereby the decision-making process is deliberately distorted to serve personal interests under the guise of official power, and “corruption of money,” whereby public office is used as a means of personal financial gain.
The bench stated, “Such accountability can legitimately extend to criminal liability where the failure to prevent or punish leads to criminal acts such as corruption, fraud, willful suppression of records, contempt of government orders and gazette notifications, and failure to implement ‘state policies’ and ‘programs’ (such as the policy of ‘zero tolerance’ towards organized and institutional corruption).”
The single judge made these observations while hearing a petition filed by a businessman (petitioner Avnish Kumar Agarwal). The petition challenged the order passed by the Bareilly Special Court, which rejected the petitioner’s application for a “No Objection Certificate” for the renewal of his passport. Furthermore, allegations were made that “some unknown miscreants” set fire to a government office and destroyed official records.
The petitioner argued before the High Court that the investigation in one FIR had been pending for nearly two decades. The charge sheet in the second FIR was filed only in 2024, after a delay of 18 years. He also stated that the allegations were made solely to harass him, and that a coordinate bench of the High Court had already stayed the proceedings against him. Against this backdrop, the petitioner argued that he was entitled to a NOC. However, the state’s counsel cited the seriousness of the allegations and opposed the relief sought in the petition.
The High Court referred to the 2023 High Court order in Manish Kumar Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, which directed the state government to constitute a high-level committee. This committee was tasked with formulating guidelines to oversee the investigation of FIRs filed by government departments in corruption and fraud cases. Among other directives in that case, the Division Bench had directed that the investigations be completed in a phased and expeditious manner. In the present case, the Bench was informed that the High-Level Committee was constituted only in December 2025, after an inordinate delay of nearly two years, and that too after this Court took cognizance of the present case.
However, the Bench did not deem it appropriate to pursue the matter further and dismissed the matter with the hope and expectation that the High Court’s directions in the 2023 decision would also be followed within the stipulated timeframe. The bench, however, noted that a major obstacle to the effective implementation of court-issued directives lies in the mindset of certain sections of the bureaucracy, whose attitude is “inclusive” and who consider maintaining their arbitrary powers “an end in itself.” The court further stated that this “fear of losing their arbitrary powers” is the primary reason behind “red tape” in public administration.
Justice Diwakar reminded the state that rules and regulations are designed to limit this unchecked power and enforce a rule-bound culture. The bench further noted that after reserving its judgment, it waited for more than three months for an update on the progress of the decisions taken by the high-powered committee, but received no information until the date of the verdict.
Calling this situation “unfortunate,” the bench reminded the government that the Chief Secretary is the key link in the state administrative structure, and those representing him are expected to exercise extraordinary vigilance.
The Court remarked, “The Additional Advocate General should understand that the Chief Secretary, who functions as the Secretary to the Cabinet and the Council of Ministers, and in that capacity serves as the Chief Advisor to the Chief Minister and the Council of Ministers on all matters relating to civil administration, policy implementation, and coordination between various departments, occupies a special and privileged position and is in every sense the key link in the structure of the State administration. It is therefore imperative that the respected law officer conducts himself with exceptional vigilance, caution, and a deep sense of institutional responsibility while discharging his duties.”
The bench further directed its Registrar (Compliance) to immediately send a certified copy of the decision to the Chief Secretary of Uttar Pradesh, along with a direction to ensure that the proceedings of the High-Powered Committee are completed in a timely and effective manner.
Most importantly, the Court directed the Chief Secretary to present the decision directly to the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh so that he could personally review it and properly consider the Court’s concerns. Based on the merits of the case, the Court admitted the petition and directed the Regional Passport Authority, Bareilly, to issue and renew the passport in favor of the petitioner in accordance with the prescribed procedure.
