Misbehaving With Government Advocates Is Contempt Of Court: Allahabad High Court Warns UP Police

Police Warned: Obstructing State Counsel Is Contempt

The Allahabad High Court has ordered the Uttar Pradesh Director General of Police to issue a state-wide circular warning officers that mistreating government lawyers is a punishable act of contempt. Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal issued the directive following a confrontation at the Azamgarh Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) office, where a Public Relations Officer allegedly intimidated an Additional Government Advocate (AGA) attempting to deliver a judicial order.

Azamgarh Officer Detained in Courtroom

The incident involved Rajesh Kumar Singh, a PRO who behaved improperly toward the AGA. The High Court’s response was immediate: the official was ordered into custody within the courtroom until 5:00 p.m. that day. During the proceedings, the Azamgarh SSP confirmed he had already removed Singh from his post and issued a show-cause notice, a swift disciplinary move that earned the court’s commendation.

Court Authority and the Role of Advocates

Justice Deshwal underscored that AGAs are officers of the court. When they relay information regarding judicial compliance, they function as extensions of the court’s own authority. The bench warned that obstructing these lawyers, irrespective of the police officer’s rank, risks formal contempt proceedings.

Negligence in Warrant Execution

Beyond the intimidation incident, the court scrutinized the execution of a non-bailable warrant (NBW). Both Singh and the Station House Officer were issued show-cause notices for their negligence.

Strict Compliance with Procedural Law

The SSP admitted he mistakenly believed that ensuring the investigating officer’s presence was sufficient. The court clarified the standard: police are mandated to arrest the individual named in an NBW and present them directly before the High Court. While district courts may grant bail, the mandatory procedural steps cannot be bypassed.

Bail Denied as Oversight Continues

These findings emerged during the bail hearing for Sachin Yadav, charged under Section 64(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and sections 66E and 67A of the Information Technology Act. The court rejected Yadav’s plea on the merits. Although the court closed proceedings against the SSP—citing his clean service record and his humanitarian act of adopting the daughters of a murder suspect—it ordered the Registrar (Compliance) to send the ruling to the state DGP to ensure the new circular reaches every police department.

More on High Court: High Court rules search warrants for Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor unlawful