Allahabad High Court Initiates Contempt Action Against UP Police Officers, Upholds Judicial Authority and Orders Compensation for Illegal Detention
By Rajesh Pandey
The Allahabad High Court has taken a stern stand against two Uttar Pradesh police officials, initiating contempt proceedings and underscoring the primacy of judicial authority in the constitutional framework.
In a strongly worded judgment delivered on February 19, Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal observed that when a judicial officer performs judicial duties, he stands above the district magistrate, the district police chief, and even the political executive of the state.
Disregard of such judicial orders, the Court held, is not only contemptuous but strikes at the very foundation of the rule of law.
The case arose from a bail application filed by Sanu alias Rashid, who had been implicated in a cheating case.
According to submissions before the Court, he was taken into police custody on September 14, 2025, but his arrest was allegedly not formally recorded.
Two days later, on September 16, his sister approached the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Lalitpur, asserting that her brother had been unlawfully detained without the arrest being shown in official records. She also filed an anticipatory bail plea the same day.
However, the anticipatory bail application was rejected on September 18 after the District Government Counsel (Criminal) informed the court that the accused had been formally arrested on the morning of September 17.
The circumstances surrounding the custody and arrest raised serious concerns.
Taking cognisance of the alleged illegal detention, the CJM, Lalitpur, passed a series of strict directions on September 22, September 30, and November 3, 2025.
The court directed the Station House Officer (SHO) and the Investigating Officer (IO) concerned to produce CCTV footage of the police station covering the dates in question.
The CJM also sought a detailed explanation regarding the arrest of a female co-accused, Rashida, at 4:00 AM, noting that under the law, a woman cannot ordinarily be arrested between sunset and sunrise.
The CJM specifically referred to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh, wherein mandatory installation and preservation of CCTV cameras in police stations were ordered to prevent custodial torture and safeguard transparency.
Despite repeated directions and even warnings of contempt proceedings, the SHO and IO failed to produce the footage or submit a satisfactory report.
When the matter eventually reached the High Court on February 4, 2026, the court summoned both officers. They appeared on February 18 and tendered unconditional apologies.
In their defence, they claimed that the CCTV storage capacity was limited to 10 terabytes, resulting in automatic deletion of footage after two months. They further described their non-compliance as an “inadvertent” lapse.
Justice Deshwal rejected this explanation, holding that the failure to comply with judicial orders was deliberate.
The Court emphasised that it cannot remain a silent spectator to blatant non-compliance with judicial directives.
The issue, the Court observed, was not merely about the violation of an individual’s personal liberty under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution, but also about undermining the authority of judicial institutions.
The High Court further noted with concern that improper maintenance of CCTV systems has become a recurring problem in several police stations across Uttar Pradesh, adversely affecting the rights of individuals who may be subjected to unlawful detention.
Referring to the Supreme Court’s judgment in All India Judges Association v. Union of India, the Court stressed that judicial officers perform sovereign judicial functions and cannot be equated with administrative or executive officials.
The Court reiterated that a judicial officer, while exercising judicial authority, holds a position superior to district-level administrative or police authorities and even the political head of the state in matters of adjudication.
The Court observed that every person entering a courtroom must respect the authority of the judicial chair.
District judicial officers, it noted, serve as the first line of protection for ordinary citizens seeking justice and constitute the backbone of the judiciary.
Invoking its powers under Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the High Court found both the SHO and the IO guilty of wilful contempt for intentionally disobeying the CJM’s orders.
While establishing guilt, the Court adopted a lenient approach in determining punishment. Both officers were directed to remain in custody within the courtroom until the rising of the court at 4:00 PM.
In addition, the High Court held that the applicant’s detention for three days without informing his family amounted to a direct breach of the Supreme Court’s safeguards laid down in the DK Basu case concerning arrest procedures.
As a result, the Court directed the State Government to pay Rs. 1 lakh as compensation to the applicant. However, the State was granted liberty to recover this amount from the salaries of the erring police personnel.
Significantly, the High Court also issued broader administrative directions. It ordered that Chief Judicial Magistrates of all districts, or the concerned judicial magistrates, shall conduct random inspections of police stations within their jurisdiction after court hours to verify the operational status of CCTV cameras, with prior intimation to the District Judge.
Such inspections, the Court clarified, shall be treated as part of their official duties and in compliance with the Supreme Court’s directives in Paramvir Singh Saini.
The Court further directed that all police officials must fully cooperate during such inspections, and any obstruction or disrespect shown to judicial officers would invite strict consequences.
It clarified that district human rights courts are empowered to entertain complaints relating to custodial violence or illegal detention and proceed in accordance with the law.
Finally, the High Court granted bail to the applicant, subject to his undertaking to transfer Rs. 15 lakh to the finance company of the first informant within 15 days.
Through this ruling, the Allahabad High Court sent a strong message reaffirming judicial supremacy in matters of adjudication, the sanctity of constitutional protections, and the uncompromising obligation of state authorities to comply with court orders.
#AllahabadHighCourt #ContemptOfCourt #JudicialAuthority #RuleOfLaw #UPPolice #CCTVCompliance #IllegalDetention #ConstitutionOfIndia #HumanRights #CustodialSafeguards
