Supreme Court stays adverse Allahbad High Court order against senior IAS officer

The Supreme Court on Thursday, June 11, 2026, set aside the Allahabad High Court order, which contained negative remarks against senior IAS officer Sanjay Prasad, Additional Chief Secretary of the Uttar Pradesh government, and directed the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) to examine his suitability for future posts by the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet.

A bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Atul S. Chandurkar passed the interim order while issuing notice of Mr. Prasad’s plea challenging the findings and directions issued by the Supreme Court in its June 3 judgment.

“Issue a notification which may be returned within 10 weeks. In the meantime, the directions issued by the Supreme Court pursuant to the impugned order will continue to be suspended,” the bench said.

The Supreme Court was holding a hearing habeas corpus Petition filed by Megha Raikwar, a resident of Jhansi, seeking relief of her 15-year-old daughter from the illegal custody of the respondent.

During the hearing, the court was informed that the First Information Report had been recorded and a criminal complaint had been filed. Ms Raikwar, however, maintained that the investigation had failed to identify the “real” accused and that the charge had been drawn up largely on the basis of statements made by the accused themselves.

‘Instructions are not followed’

The Supreme Court later found that the indictment had not been filed in accordance with the instructions given in its 19th judgment. Subhash Chandra and Others v. State of Uttar PradeshSetting out detailed guidelines to ensure that criminal investigations are fair and legally maintainable. He therefore called for a statement from the Ministry of Internal Affairs.

In its affidavit, the state government informed the Supreme Court that it intends to appeal this decision. Subhash Chandra He submitted the decision to the Supreme Court and requested that no further negative decisions be made pending the proposed appeal.

The court accordingly adjourned the matter and awaited an update on the proposed objection. However, although more than three months have passed since the affidavit was filed and more than a year has passed since the affidavit was filed, Subhash Chandra Although the decision was made, the State had not yet appealed to the Supreme Court.

Taking exception to the delay, Justice Vinod Diwakar observed that even though no appeal had been filed in the Supreme Court for over a year, the proposed appeal was being used to justify inaction on implementation of the court directions.

In its judgment, the Supreme Court observed that the “unbridled” and “uncontrolled” discretion given to civil servants undermines the rule of law and undermines accountability in public administration.

“Senior managers must be held accountable for the conduct and performance of their subordinates as it is their professional and managerial responsibility to ensure the effective delivery of public services,” the court said. He added that such liability could include exposure to criminal liability if failure to prevent or address misconduct by subordinates resulted in crimes such as corruption, fraud or disrespect for lawful orders.

The Supreme Court also recommended that the DoPT develop a doctrine of “supreme liability” to hold senior officials accountable for failing to prevent or act against misconduct by their subordinates. He also directed that the matter be submitted to the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet for review of Mr. Prasad’s suitability for future posts.

In his plea before the high court challenging the order, Mr. Prasad alleged that the Supreme Court had gone beyond the relief sought in the petition and made adverse statements against him without any basis or justification.