Legal Services India - Law Articles is a Treasure House of Legal Knowledge and information, the law resources is an ever growing database of authentic legal information.
Legal Services India

» Home
Thursday, October 30, 2025

Officers In Police And Civil Administration In UP Seem To Take Pride In Flouting Judicial Orders: Allahabad HC

Posted in: Civil Laws
Sat, Jun 28, 25, 12:51, 4 Months ago
star star star star star
0 out of 5 with 0 ratings
comments: 0 - hits: 29026
Allahabad HC slams UP officials for flouting stay order; calls for High Court Bench in West UP to ensure timely, accessible justice

It is a matter of utmost grave concern that none other than Allahabad High Court which is the biggest High Court not in just India or not in just Asia but in whole world itself in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled Smt. Chhama vs State of UP and 3 Others in WRIT - C No. - 7339 of 2025 that was pronounced as recently as on 29.5.2025 has minced absolutely just no words to state in no uncertain terms that officers in the State police and civil administration appear to take pride in flouting judicial orders and it seems to give them a sense of achievement rather than feeling of guilt.

It must be disclosed here that the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice JJ Munir made the hard hitting remark while taking potshots when it was dealing with a plea which had alleged that officials demolished a house in Baghpat district despite a stay order of the High Court caring two hoots for it. This is definitely most concerning and cannot be afforded to ever taken lightly as Allahabad High Court is not some very small institution which can be taken most lightly! The problem is: Allahabad is very far away from West UP about 700-800 km on average far away from even Lucknow Bench which is still 230 km closer to West UP which makes officials feel complacent that it will take a long time which all the more necessitates that a High Court Bench must definitely be created in West UP so that immediate action is ensured.

It is definitely in the fitness of things that the Bench minced absolutely just no words in taking potshots remarking There seems to have come about a culture amongst the Executive Officers of the State, particularly, those in the Police and Civil administration to find a kind of pride in flouting judicial orders. It seems to give them a sense of achievement, rather than make them feel the guilt of being offenders. This matter cannot be taken lightly. It is well settled that any action done, whatever be its nature in violation of a judicial order, is a nullity.” It must be mentioned here that the Bench added further that a demolition is a physical act which once accomplished only leaves two choices to the Court – award of damages or restitution. To put it simply, the Bench specified stating The restitution would be by reconstruction of the demolished building. The building here was constructed in the Harijan abadi. It was not a construction in some kind of a public utility land, like a pond, a khalihan or a land submerged under water. Therefore, in our opinion, this might be a case, where restitution ought be ordered, requiring the State to reconstruct.”

It must be revealed here that in this present case, we see that an order of eviction had been passed against the house owner Chhama (petitioner) in July 2024 and her appeal was dismissed in February 2025. She moved the Allahabad High Court in March 2025. In the meantime, a PIL was filed seeking removal of the encroachment.

It must be disclosed here that in the PIL, the Allahabad High Court on May 5 ordered the Baghpat Collector to answer if any higher forum had passed any interim order in the matter and if not, why eviction had not been executed. The petitioner then mentioned her case against eviction for an urgent relief. The Allahabad High Court very rightly stayed the eviction order directing that construction of the petitioner shall not be demolished and no recovery shall be made.

It must be disclosed here that both these cases, the petitioner’s plea and so also the PIL were later ordered to be listed before the same Bench. It certainly merits noticing that the petitioner in the aftermath of the demolition deemed it fit to move a contempt of court plea against the officials for disobeying the stay order. While considering that it did not have a roster to deal with the contempt of court cases, the Bench treated the plea “as one for wrongdoer”.

Needless to say, the Bench prima facie found that the demolition was carried out in violation of the stay order. It was taken into account by the Bench that photographs showed that authorities looked the other way when the stay order was shown to them. On the claim that the stay order was uploaded late on Allahabad High Court website, the Bench said that the authorities should have verified once they were informed about the interim relief that had been granted to the petitioner.

No doubt, the Bench very rightly pointed out Even if there is a delay in uploading of the order and it has been passed in the presence of the learned Standing Counsel, and, the petitioner says that the High Court has passed a stay order, it is the duty of the Authorities to lay their hands back off something as drastic as demolition, until such time that the fact of a stay order being passed by this Court is verified. Upon hearing and an intimation of fact that this Court has passed a stay order, the Authorities should have immediately gone on the cautious mode and ascertained the said fact before proceeding further. Here, the photographs show that the order was already there, as the records show and well within the knowledge of the respondent-authorities and yet they went ahead with the demolition.” It must be revealed here that the Bench had now issued notice to Collector, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil-Sadar, District Baghpat and the Tehsildar, Tehsil-Sadar, District Baghpat, requiring each of them to file their own affidavit on or before July 7, explaining why the demolished building be not reconstructed by them and restored to its original shape by the State.

It is high time and a High Court Bench must be created in any of the 30 districts of West UP which has more than 10 crores population. It is most gladdening to note that the incumbent CJI – Hon’ble Mr Justice BR Gavai on June 26 while speaking at his felicitation that was organized by the Advocates Association of the Aurangabad Bench of Bombay High Court has said most strongly that he supported the demand to set up a Bench of the Bombay High Court at Kolhapur in Western Maharashtra for 5 districts stating that justice should be available to every citizen “in every corner”. He said Every time there is a demand for Kolhapur Bench of the Bombay High Court in Western Maharashtra, I have supported it and given the example of the Aurangabad Bench. More cases are filed in the Aurangabad Bench now than those in the Bombay Bench of the High Court.”

The incumbent CJI – Hon’ble Mr Justice BR Gavai further hastened to add that, “It is not financially possible for everyone to come to Bombay (Mumbai) for each and every hearing. Every citizen in every corner should get justice without having to spend much time and money.” Most ironically and most shamefully, we see that Justice Jaswant Singh Commission headed by former Supreme Court Judge was constituted by Centre itself for creating a High Court Bench in West UP among other places and it recommended maximum three High Court Benches in undivided UP – two circuit Benches in hilly areas at Dehradun and Nainital and a permanent Bench in West UP yet not one Bench created till date which ultimately resulted in huge agitations in hilly areas of undivided UP and UP got partitioned in 2000 and then got separate High Court for just 88 lakh people and separate State named Uttarakhand but for West UP with more than 10 crores population which owes for majority of pending cases of UP, we see that not a single Bench created till date even though a permanent Bench was recommended for it most unfortunately and it also recommended High Court Bench in Aurangabad in Maharashtra which already had multiple High Court Benches at Nagpur and Panaji and yet created most promptly many decades ago in 1980s itself and so also a High Court Bench at Japlaiguri was created in West Bengal which already had High Court Bench in Port Blair for just 2 lakh people and so also at Madurai in Tamil Nadu created! This is the real tragedy and real worst discrimination in distribution of High Court Benches in different States!

I must add here that it is certainly high time now and the worst discrimination that has been perpetrated in judiciary itself since last 75 years of completion of Constitution must be addressed at the earliest now! Frustration stems in minds of litigants of West UP due to no Bench in this region! High Court Benches are tools to be used to strengthen speedy justice and “justice at doorsteps” as recommended most strongly by 230th Report of Law Commission of India prepared under Chairmanship of former Supreme Court Judge Late Dr AR Lakshmanan and other legal experts and High Court Benches are not some ornaments to be just locked up in few elite States alone as per ruling elite own whims and fancies as we see most unfortunately since last nearly eight decades!

If we jog our memory a little back, we can recall how even the then former UN Secretary General Ban ki Moon while he was UN Secretary General had slammed UP as “rape and crime capital of India”! At first blush, even a layman can point out effortlessly that which State in India needs multiple High Court Benches and which State needs maximum High Court Benches! Doubtless, it is UP which needs maximum High Court Benches yet has only one and lawless Bihar has none! It is UP which has maximum population more than 26 crores and has maximum number of pending cases and still has only one High Court Bench at Lucknow so near to Allahabad created 77 years ago in July 1948 even though it is West UP which owes for majority of the total pending cases of UP and worst of all the litigants of 30 districts of West UP have been attached with not even Lucknow but right uptill Allahabad which means whole night and nearly a day wasted on just travelling alone to seek justice which in itself is the biggest betrayal of Constitution, deepest burial of justice and worst mockery of poorest litigants of West UP since last 78 years of independence yet Apex Court never interferes by taking suo motu cognizance nor Centre ever shows any real interest in addressing it! Dr BR Ambedkar who is founding father of Constitution himself recommended separate Statehood for West UP just like for East UP and Central UP but West UP has not even a Bench!

By the way, the population of West UP is more than majority of the States in India and so also majority of countries in world yet has not even a single High Court Bench! Most utterly disgusting indeed! This in my view is definitely the biggest and so also the most tightest slap on the face of Constitution and what befuddles me most is that Uttarakhand as long as it formed part of UP was denied even a single Bench even though Justice Jaswant Singh Commission headed by former Supreme Court Judge appointed by Centre itself in mid 1970s most strongly recommended maximum High Court Benches for undivided UP with two Circuit Benches in hilly areas in Nainital and Dehradun yet not created and when people agitated hugely as they had to travel thousands of kilometers all the way till Allahabad to seek justice which in itself was the biggest betrayal of Constitution, deepest burial of justice and so also worst mockery of poorest litigants then after 54 years of independence, separate High Court was given suddenly about 25 years ago on November 9, 2000 at Nainital! We also saw how a main permanent High Court Bench was recommended by Justice Jaswant Singh Commission for West UP about 50 years ago yet not created most distressingly till date even in June 2025!

One is totally clueless as to why Centre and concerned States are not taking any meaningful and decisive steps to create more High Court Benches not even in big States like UP and Rajasthan as both have only one Bench and lawless Bihar most shockingly has none even though the 230th Report of Law Commission of India in 2009 headed by former Supreme Court Judge and an eminent jurist – Late Hon’ble Dr AR Lakshmanan most strongly advocated for creation of more High Court Benches in States and yet even after 16 years only few elite States like Karnataka, Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, West Bengal and Assam alone have exclusive privilege of having multiple High Court Benches? To cut a long story short, the question is whether Centre will ever try to dismantle the monopoly of few elite States in having multiple High Court Benches?

No wonder, in the India Justice Report 2025 that was released on April 14, 2025, we see that States like Karnataka with population of just 6 crore get VVIP treatment by being given multiple High Court Benches at Dharwad and Gulbarga for just 4 and 8 districts only created in 2008 rank among the best States right on top and West UP with 30 districts and more than 10 crore people not even a single Bench and UP with more than 26 crore population which is more than Pakistan at 25 crore has just one Bench only and it is a no-brainer that it has been listed in worst category just like lawless Bihar and Rajasthan among others also figuring in the worst category of States! Five south states rank among top performers as for just 3.5 crore people of Telangana, separate High Court created on June 2, 2014 and so also for Andhra Pradesh with just 4 crore population and we know that Andhra Pradesh Assembly just recently approved a High Court Bench in Kurnool but for Punjab and Haryana there is no separate High Court for both the States and so no wonder it figures in middle performer category states!

Still why Parliament never ensures that big States like UP, lawless Bihar and Rajasthan have multiple High Court Benches even after more than 78 years of independence? Parliament cannot be absolved ever from its most exceptional stupidity in doing nothing to set the record straight on this count and bringing them at least on parity with few elite States who have multiple High Court Benches like Karnataka even though its population at 6 crores is more than 4 crores less than West UP alone at 10 crores and more than 20 crores less than UP at 26 crores! No wonder, it is right at the top in the India Justice Report 2025!

But it really speaks volumes of how much discrimination our Centre and so also our Parliament that is both legislature and executive has ensured is perpetrated on big North Indian States like UP, Rajasthan and Bihar in judiciary itself in High Court Benches distribution which makes me hang my head in shame! It would be foolhardy to ignore the ground reality which speaks for itself. Yet Supreme Court also never takes suo motu cognizance of it and as we saw in November 2018 when an Apex Court Bench led by the then CJI Mr Ranjan Gogoi conceded the dire need of a High Court Bench in West UP while listening to a PIL by a woman lawyer KM Chitra dismissed the PIL saying that it was for Centre to decide! How long will a solution to this Bench issue in West UP keep lurking in the shadows?

Will creation of more High Court Benches ensure or hinder the rule of law? No prizes for guessing the clear writing on the wall! Why the most legitimate voice of the litigants of West UP for a High Court Bench has been throttled for so long despite West UP owing for majority of pending cases of UP and contributing to more than 80% of State’s economy? The crux of the problem is: Centre is least interested in taking any pains to seriously resolve this long pending issue which definitely has to be roundly and most strongly condemned! A High Court Bench in West UP will better ensure that police and civil administration in West UP comply as directed as it will be much closer! It certainly brooks no more delay any longer now!

By any reckoning, there cannot be ever a bigger tragedy than this that for 78 years of independence we see that West UP has been denied even a single High Court Bench even though it is West UP which owes for majority of the pending cases of UP which is highest not just in UP but is also highest in any other region of India yet mercilessly deprived from having even a single High Court Bench which is undoubtedly most disastrous!

What is even most worst is that the litigants of 30 districts of West UP have been most atrociously attached with not even Lucknow where a High Court Bench exists since July 1948 in Eastern UP but attached most stupidly with Allahabad which is more than 230 km away from even Lucknow which means the poorest litigants of 30 districts of West UP have to spend more and travel whole night and nearly a day about 700 to 800 km in average by train to attend court hearings which is plainly unconstitutional just like litigants of hilly areas of undivided UP had to travel thousands of kilometres all the way again till Allahabad in true dictatorial style making the worst mockery of our Constitution and so also of poorest litigants till Uttar Pradesh was partitioned and this was the major reason which political parties never like to concede and judiciary also has been reticent in taking any action in this regard even though it took suo motu cognizance recently in cheating in Mayor elections as we saw in Chandigarh some time back!

The trials and tribulations that litigants of West UP have to face due to no Bench in this region even though majority of pending cases are from West UP are simply unending yet most atrociously we see that Centre has done absolutely just nothing to resolve it and media too has utterly failed to highlight it effectively! The step-motherly treatment that has been humiliatingly accorded to West UP which owes for majority of pending cases of UP and contributes more than 80 percent to State’s economy is most disgraceful and most saddening indeed! No denying it!

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col (Retd) BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut - 250001, Uttar Pradesh

Legal Services India

Comments

There are no comments for this article.
Only authorized users can leave comments. Please sign in first, or register a free account.
Share
Sponsor
About Author
Sanjeev Sirohi Advocate
Member since Apr 20, 2018
Location: Meerut, UP
Following
User not following anyone yet.
You might also like
Present space law framework in the country. Space has heightened the curiosity of mankind for centuries. Due to the advancement in technology, there is fierce competition amongst nations for the next space war.
The scope of Section 151 CPC has been explained by the Supreme Court in the case K.K. Velusamy v. N. Palanisamy
Co-operative Societies are governed by the Central Co-operative Societies Act 1912, where there is no State Act. In West Bengal they were governed by the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act
Registration enables an NGO to be a transparent in its operations to the Government, Donors, to its members and to its urgent community.
The ingredients of Section 18 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 are
Drafting of legal Agreements and Deeds in India
ST Land rules in India,West Bengal
The paper will discuss about the provisions related to liquidated damages. How the law has evolved. Difference between the provisions of England and India.
A privilege may not be a right, but, under the constitution of the country, I do not gather that any broad distinction is drawn between the rights and the privileges that were enjoyed and that were taken away.
It is most hurting to see that in India, the soldiers who hail from Jammu and Kashmir and who join forces either in Army or in CRPF or in BSF or in police or in any other forces against the will of majority
Pukhraj v/s State of Uttarakhand warned high caste priests very strongly against refusing to perform religious ceremonies on behalf of lower caste pilgrims. It took a very stern view of the still existing practice of exclusion of the SC/ST community in Haridwar.
This article aims to define delay in civil suits. It finds the general as well as specific causes leading to pendency of civil suits and over-burdening of courts. This articles suggests some solutions which are pragmatic as well as effective to reduce the burden of the courts and speed up the civil judicial process.
This article deals with importance, needs, highlights and provisions of the Surrogacy Bill 2016, which is passed by the lok sabha on 19th December 2018 .
Cross Examination In Case of Injunction Suits, Injunctions are governed by Sections 37, 38, 39 to Section 42 of Specific Relief Act.
Satishchandra Ratanlal Shah v Gujarat inability of a person to return the loan amount cannot give rise to a criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction..
Dr.Ashok Khemka V/s Haryana upheld the integrity of eminent IAS officer because of his upright and impeccable credentials has emerged as an eyesore for politicians of all hues but also very rightly expunged Haryana Chief Minister ML Khattar adverse remarks in his Personal Appraisal Report
State of Rajasthan and others v. Mukesh Sharma has upheld the constitutional validity of Rule 8(2)(i) of the Rajasthan Prisons (Shortening of Sentences) Rules, 2006.
Gurmit Singh Bhatia Vs Kiran Kant Robinson the Supreme Court reiterated that, in a suit, the plaintiff is the dominus litis and cannot be forced to add parties against whom he does not want to fight unless there is a compulsion of the rule of law.
explicitly in a latest landmark ruling prohibited the use of loudspeakers in the territory without prior permission from the authorities.
The Commissioner of Police v/s Devender Anand held that filing of criminal complaint for settling a dispute of civil nature is abuse of process of law.
Rajasthan Vs Shiv Dayal High Court cannot dismiss a second appeal merely on the ground that there is a concurrent finding of two Courts (whether of dismissal or decreeing of the suit), and thus such finding becomes unassailable.
Complete Guide to Pleadings in India, get your Written statement and Plaint Drafted by highly qualified lawyers at reasonable rate.
Sushil Chandra Srivastava vs UP imposed absolute prohibition on use of DJs in the state and asked the state government to issue a toll-free number, dedicated to registering complaints against illegal use of loudspeakers. It will help control noise pollution to a very large extent if implemented in totality.
Rajasthan v/s Shri Ramesh Chandra Mundra that institutional independence, financial autonomy is integral to independence of judiciary. directing the Rajasthan Government to reconsider the two decade old proposal of the then Chief Justice of Rajasthan High Court to upgrade 16 posts of its Private Secretaries as Senior Private Secretaries
The Indian Contract act, 1872 necessities significant consideration in a few of its areas. One such area of the Indian Contract act of 1872 is where if any person finds a lost good belonging to others and takes them into his custody acts as the bailee to the owner of the good.
Government has notified 63 provisions of the Motor Vehicles Amendment Act 2019 including the ones dealing with enhanced penalties
Jose Paulo Coutinho vs. Maria Luiza Valentina Pereira no attempt has been made yet to frame a Uniform Civil Code applicable to all citizens of the country despite exhortations by it. Whether succession to the property of a Goan situated outside Goa in India will be governed by the Portuguese Civil Code, 1867
In a major legal setback to Pakistan, the High Court of England and Wales rejecting rightly Pakistan's frivolous claims and ruling explicitly that the VII Nizam of Hyderabad's descendants and India can collect 35 million pounds from Londons National Westminster Bank.
Power of Attorney and the Specific Relief Act, 1963
air pollution in Delhi and even adjoining regions like several districts of West UP are crossing all limits and this year even in districts adjoining Delhi like Meerut where air pollution was never felt so much as is now being felt.
Dr Syed Afzal (Dead) v/sRubina Syed Faizuddin that the Civil Courts while considering the application seeking interim mandatory injunction in long pending cases, should grant opportunity of hearing to the opposite side, interim mandatory injunctions can be granted after granting opportunity of hearing to the opposite side.
students of Banaras Hindu University's (BHU's) Sanskrit Vedvigyan Sankay (SVDVS) went on strike demanding the cancellation of the appointment of Assistant Professor Feroze Khan and transfer him to another faculty.
Odisha Development Corporation Ltd Vs. M/s Anupam Traders & Anr. the time tested maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit which in simple and straight language means that, No party should suffer due to the act of Court.
M/S Daffodills Pharmaceuticals Ltd v/s. State of U.P that no one can be inflicted with an adverse order, without being afforded a minimum opportunity of hearing. In other words, the Apex Court reiterated the supreme importance of the legal maxim and latin phrase titled Audi alteram partem
Ram Murti Yadav v/s State of Uttar Pradesh the standard or yardstick for judging the conduct of the judicial officer has necessarily to be strict, that the public has a right to demand virtually irreproachable conduct from anyone performing a judicial function.
Judicial Officers Being Made Scapegoats And Penalized By Inconvenient Transfers And Otherwise: SC
Desh Raj v/s Balkishan that the mandatory time-line for filing written statement is not applicable to non-commercial suits. In non-commercial suits, the time-line for written statement is directory and not mandatory, the courts have the discretion to condone delay in filing of written statement in non-commercial suits.
M/S Granules India Ltd. Vs UOI State, as a litigant, cannot behave as a private litigant, and it has solemn and constitutional duty to assist the court in dispensation of justice.
To exercise one's own fundamental right to protest peacefully does not give anyone the unfettered right to block road under any circumstances thereby causing maximum inconvenience to others.
Today, you have numerous traffic laws as well as cases of traffic violations. People know about safe driving yet they end up defying the safety guidelines. It could be anything like driving while talking on the phone, hit and run incidents, or driving under the influence of alcohol.
The legal processes are uncertain. Also, there are times when justice gets denied, and the legal outcomes get delayed. Hence, nobody wants to see themselves or their loved one end up in jail.
Arun Kumar Gupta v/s Jharkhand that judicial officer's integrity must be of a higher order and even a single aberration is not permitted. The law pertaining to the vital subject of compulsory retirement of judicial officers have thus been summed up in this noteworthy judgment.
Online Contracts or Digital Agreements are contracts created and signed over the internet. Also known as e-contracts or electronic contracts, these contracts are a more convenient and faster way of creating and signing contracts for individuals, institutions and corporate.
Re: Problems And Miseries Of Migrant Labourers has asked Maharashtra to be more vigilant and make concerted effort in identifying and sending stranded migrant workers to their native places.
Gerald Lynn Bostock v/s Clayton County, Georgia that employees cannot be fired from the jobs merely because of their transgender and homosexual identity.
This article compares two cases with similar facts, yet different outcomes and examines the reasons for the same. It revolves around consideration and validation of contracts.
Odisha Vikas Parishad vs Union Of India while modifying the absolute stay on conducting the Jagannath Rath Yatra at Puri has allowed it observing the strict restrictions and regulations of the Centre and the State Government.
Soni Beniwal v/s Uttarakhand even if there is a bar on certain matters to be taken as PIL, there is always discretion available with the Court to do so in exercise of its inherent powers.
Indian Contract Act was commenced in the year 1872 and since then, several deductions and additions have happened to the same. The following piece of work discusses about the concept of offer under the Indian Contract Act, 1872
Top