The Supreme Court upholds the Allahbad High Court's adverse decision against a senior IAS officer

A Bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Atul S. Chandurkar passed the interim order while issuing a notice of objection filed by Mr. Prasad challenging the findings and directions issued by the Supreme Court in its June 3 judgment. File | Photo credit: The Hindu

The Supreme Court on Thursday (June 11, 2026) stayed the Allahabad High Court’s order containing adverse remarks against senior IAS officer Sanjay Prasad, Additional Chief Secretary to the Uttar Pradesh government, and directed the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) to examine his suitability for future assignments by the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet.

“Issuance notice, returnable in 10 weeks. In the meantime, the directions issued by the Supreme Court under the impugned order shall stand,” the Bench said.

The Supreme Court was hearing a habeas corpus petition filed by Jhansi resident Megha Raikwar seeking the return of her 15-year-old daughter from the respondent’s alleged illegal custody.

During the proceedings, the court was informed that the First Information Report had been registered and an indictment had been filed. However, Ms. Raikwar claimed that the investigation failed to identify the “real” accused and that the charge sheet was filed largely on the statements of the accused persons themselves.

“Instructions not followed”

The High Court subsequently observed that the charge sheet had not been filed in accordance with the directions given in its judgment in Subhash Chandra and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh, which laid down detailed guidelines to ensure fair and legally sustainable investigations into crimes. The Ministry of the Interior therefore asked for an explanation.

In its affidavit, the state government informed the High Court that it intends to challenge Subhash Chandra’s judgment in the Supreme Court and asked that no further adverse decisions be made until the proposed appeal is filed.

The court therefore adjourned the matter pending the update of the proposed summons. Despite more than three months since the affidavit was filed and more than a year since Subhash Chandra’s verdict, the state is yet to approach the Supreme Court.

Barring the delay, Justice Vinod Diwakar noted that the proposed appeal was used to justify inaction in implementing the court’s directions despite no objection being filed in the Supreme Court for over a year.

In its order, the apex court said the “unbridled” and “unchecked” discretion given to civil servants undermines the rule of law and weakens accountability in public administration.

“Superiors must be held accountable for the conduct and performance of their subordinates as it is their professional and administrative responsibility to ensure the efficient delivery of public services,” the court said. He added that this responsibility could extend to the creation of criminal liability if the failure to prevent or address the misconduct of subordinates would result in criminal acts such as corruption, fraud or contempt of legal orders.

The apex court further recommended that the DoPT develop a doctrine of “superior responsibility” to hold senior officers accountable for failing to prevent or act against misconduct by subordinates. He also directed that the matter be referred to the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet to examine Mr. Prasad’s suitability for future assignments.

In his plea challenging the order in the high court, Mr. Prasad said that the High Court went beyond what was required in the petition and made adverse remarks against him without any basis or justification.

Published – 12 Jun 2026 02:30 IST