The Allahabad High Court has urged the Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister to recognize that the time has come to hold senior bureaucrats and top administrative heads accountable, and even criminally liable, for the lapses of their departments or subordinates. The HC directed the UP Chief Secretary to place its judgment before the CM for his personal perusal and due consideration of the court's concerns.
Doctrine of Superior Responsibility
In its order dated June 3, a bench of Justice Vinod Diwakar said that the state must adopt a doctrine of 'superior responsibility', under which senior officers in an administrative hierarchy are held accountable. 'Senior officers must be held accountable for the conduct and performance of their subordinates, as it is their professional and administrative responsibility to ensure the effective delivery of public services,' the court observed.
Case Background
In the present case, the petitioner, Avnesh Kumar Agarwal, had challenged an order passed by a special court in Bareilly, which rejected his plea for a no-objection certificate (NOC) for the renewal of his passport. According to the petitioner, he was not given an NOC because of two criminal cases against him, out of which one was related to the Prevention of Corruption Act. In one case, the investigation remained pending for nearly two decades, and in the other FIR, the chargesheet was submitted only in 2024 after a delay of 18 years.
Previous Court Directions
The court referred to a 2023 order of the HC in Manish Kumar Singh vs State of UP, directing the state government to constitute a high-powered committee to formulate guidelines for monitoring the investigation of FIRs registered by government departments in corruption and cheating cases. In that case, in addition to issuing other directions, the division bench directed that the investigations be completed expeditiously in a phased manner.
Delay in Compliance
The court was apprised that, pursuant to the 2023 judgment, the committee was formed only in December 2025, and that too, when the court took note of the present matter. The court then said that a significant impediment to the effective implementation of court-issued directions lies in the mindset of certain sections of the bureaucracy, whose approach is 'not inclusive' and who tend to regard the retention of discretionary power 'as an end in itself'. The court further said that this 'apprehension of losing discretion' is the primary driver behind 'red-tapism' in public administration.
Court's Observations on Bureaucracy
The bench had reserved judgment three months back and waited for updates on the progress of decisions made by the committee, but received no information until the date of pronouncement. Terming the situation 'unfortunate', the bench reminded the additional advocate general that the chief secretary is the keystone of the arch of state administration, requiring extraordinary vigilance from those who represent him.
The court said, 'The additional advocate general must appreciate that the chief secretary, functioning as the secretary to the cabinet and the council of ministers and serving, in that capacity, as the principal adviser to the CM and the council of ministers on all matters of civil administration, policy implementation, and inter-departmental coordination, occupies a special and privileged position and is, in every sense, the keystone of the arch of state administration.'
Final Directives
With this, the bench directed its registrar (compliance) to immediately send a copy of the judgment to the chief secretary, with a direction that the proceedings of the high-powered committee be concluded in a timely and effective manner. The court had allowed the petition, directing the Regional Passport Authority, Bareilly, to issue or renew the passport in favor of the petitioner in accordance with the prescribed procedure.
