Allahabad High Court Urges Chief Minister To Consider Doctrine Of “Superior Responsibility” For Holding Senior Officers Accountable

The Court was hearing a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging an order passed by the Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Bareilly rejecting the petitioner’s application seeking issuance of a No Objection Certificate for renewal of passport in connection with two FIRs registered in 2007 alleging corruption, forgery, criminal conspiracy and destruction of official records involving officers of the Commercial Tax Department and private persons.

A Bench of Justice Vinod Diwakar observed: “Before parting with the present matter, this Court considers it appropriate to place on record certain observations which, in its considered opinion, warrant the attention of the Hon’ble the Chief Minister, Uttar Pradesh that the time has come for the State to evolve and adopt a doctrine of ‘superior responsibility’, whereby senior officers in an administrative hierarchy are held accountable- and, in appropriate cases, criminally responsible for their failure to prevent or punish acts of commission or omission by their subordinates. The expression ‘failure to prevent’ must be understood to include ‘the failure to take timely administrative measures’ or ‘to report the matter to higher administrative authorities’. Exceptional situations that produce widespread, systematic and enduring adverse effects upon public administration demand exceptional remedies.”

Advocate Pavan Kumar appeared for the petitioner. Manish Goel, Additional Advocate General, assisted by Roopak Chaubey, A.G.A.-I and Advocate Sanjay Dwivedi appeared for the respondents.

Background

The petitioner challenged the order rejecting his request for the issuance of a No Objection Certificate for passport renewal. The petitioner was an accused in two FIRs registered in 2007, alleging offences under Sections 406, 420, 424, 467, 468, 471, 477, 120-B and 218 IPC, along with provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

The allegations pertained to the fabrication of forged consignments, misuse of official positions by Trade Tax Department officials in collusion with businessmen and destruction of official records by setting a government office on fire.

According to the petitioner, the investigation in one FIR remained pending for nearly two decades, while in the second matter, the charge-sheet came to be filed only in 2024 after an inordinate delay of approximately eighteen years. The petitioner also relied upon an earlier order passed by a Coordinate Bench staying proceedings arising from one of the FIRs.

During the course of proceedings, the High Court took note of the earlier Division Bench judgment in Manish Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. (2023), wherein directions had been issued for the constitution of a High-Powered Committee under the Chairmanship of the Chief Secretary for monitoring investigations in corruption and cheating cases registered by Government departments.

The Court repeatedly sought instructions regarding compliance with the directions issued in Manish Kumar Singh and directed the production of original files concerning the constitution of the Committee and details regarding the delay in implementation of the directions.

Court’s Observation

At the outset, the High Court noted that despite explicit judicial directions issued in Manish Kumar Singh requiring the constitution of the High-Powered Committee within six months, the Committee came to be constituted only in December 2025 after intervention by the Court in the present proceedings and after a delay extending to nearly two years.

The Court further noted that the State Government itself had repeatedly declared a policy of zero tolerance towards corruption and had acknowledged the necessity of structured monitoring of corruption and cheating cases registered by Government departments.

Referring to proceedings of the High-Powered Committee, the Court observed that Divisional-Level Monitoring Committees and District-Level Monitoring Committees had subsequently been constituted to facilitate structured and time-bound monitoring of investigations and prosecution proceedings.

The Court also noted that the High-Powered Committee itself recognised the necessity of creating additional departmental monitoring mechanisms despite the Interoperable Criminal Justice System already functioning within the State.

The Court observed, “It is a well-recognised principle that absolute and untrammelled discretion breeds corruption and provides fertile ground for discrimination, both of which are antithetical to due process and the rule of law culture.”

The Court expressed concern regarding repeated instances of non-compliance with judicial directions by State authorities and observed that compliance in the present matter had ultimately been secured only because the issue was repeatedly re-agitated before the Court.

The Court observed, “This Court continues to encounter frequent instances of non-compliance with its orders.”

While considering possible remedial measures, the Court observed that it possessed full authority to initiate contempt proceedings, direct personal appearance of senior officers, impose exemplary costs, frame compliance mechanisms and transmit adverse remarks to cadre controlling authorities, but consciously refrained from adopting coercive measures at the present stage in the larger interest of the State and its institutions.

The Court thereafter proceeded to make broader observations concerning systemic accountability within public administration and the necessity of institutional reform mechanisms capable of addressing recurring administrative failures.

The Court observed, “Exceptional situations that produce widespread, systematic and enduring adverse effects upon public administration demand exceptional remedies.”

The Court further clarified that the expression “failure to prevent” must include failure to take timely administrative measures as well as failure to report the matter to higher administrative authorities.

Referring to corruption, negligence and institutional inaction, the Court observed that accountability may legitimately extend to criminal liability where failure to prevent or punish results in corruption, fraud, suppression of records, contempt of Government orders and failure to implement State policy and programmes.

The Court further observed, “Senior officers must be held accountable for the conduct and performance of their subordinates, as it is both their professional and administrative responsibility to ensure the effective delivery of public services.”

The Court additionally expressed dissatisfaction regarding the conduct of the State authorities in failing to update the Court regarding progress made by the High-Powered Committee despite repeated opportunities and despite the passage of more than three months after the reservation of judgment.

Referring to administrative functioning, the Court observed, “The apprehension of losing discretion may well be one of the principal drivers of ‘red-tapism’ in public administration.”

Conclusion

The High Court allowed the petition and set aside the order rejecting the petitioner’s application seeking issuance of a No Objection Certificate for passport renewal.

The Court directed issuance of the No Objection Certificate in favour of the petitioner and further directed the Regional Passport Authority, Bareilly, to renew the passport in accordance with the prescribed procedure.

The Registrar (Compliance) was directed to transmit a certified copy of the judgment to the Chief Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh, with directions that the proceedings of the High-Powered Committee be concluded in a timely and effective manner and that comprehensive guidelines, along with an effective accountability mechanism for errant officers, be framed in compliance with the judgment in Manish Kumar Singh.

The Court further directed the Chief Secretary to place a copy of the judgment before the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh for consideration of the concerns flagged by the Court regarding administrative accountability and the doctrine of “superior responsibility”.

Cause Title: Avnesh Kumar Agarwal v. Union of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026:AHC:98214)

Click here to read/download Judgment