Justice Vinod Diwakar, Allahabad High Court
Police Officers’ Loyalty Runs Toward Ruling Dispensation Instead Of Constitution: Allahabad High Court Warns Against Politicised Use Of Gangsters Act
|The Court expressed deep constitutional concern over the misuse of police powers, selective invocation of the Gangsters Act, and politically influenced administrative functioning, while emphasising that constitutional governance cannot be subordinated to individual convenience or ruling establishments.
The Allahabad High Court has observed that a deeply entrenched administrative culture has emerged in Uttar Pradesh where a considerable section of officers treat the rule of law as an “operational inconvenience” and calibrate their conduct to satisfy political superiors instead of remaining loyal to constitutional principles.
The Court further observed that encounter killings, selective crackdowns and targeted invocation of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, against inconvenient individuals had periodically attracted judicial scrutiny and cautioned that constitutional posts could not be reduced into instruments of individual or political convenience.
The Court was hearing an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by Rajendra Tyagi and others seeking quashing of proceedings initiated under Sections 2 and 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 arising out of FIR No. 101 of 2023 registered at Police Station Nandgram, Ghaziabad.
A Bench of Justice Vinod Diwakar observed: “The vertical loyalty of officers runs not toward the Constitution but toward the ruling dispensation. Field officers, acutely conscious of the transfer-posting economy, calibrate their conduct to satisfy political superiors.”
The Court further observed: “Encounter killings, selective crackdowns, and targeted use of the Gangsters Act against inconvenient individuals have periodically attracted judicial notice. The High Court has, on numerous occasions, deprecated this tendency and reminded officers that their posts are constitutional in character and must not be reduced to instruments of individual convenience.”
The Bench also observed: “Constitutional governance cannot be held hostage to individual expediency or an individual’s convenience, and that the State apparatus must remain answerable to the law and to the Constitution, and not to any ruling establishment.”
Advocate Ronak Chaturvedi appeared for the applicants. Anoop Trivedi, Additional Advocate General, assisted by Paritosh Kumar Malviya, AGA-I, appeared for the State.
Background
The prosecution's case alleged that Rajendra Tyagi and his family members were operating an organised gang involved in financial fraud, forgery and criminal intimidation in relation to land transactions in Ghaziabad and Jalaun districts. Based on these allegations, an FIR under Sections 2 and 3 of the Gangsters Act was registered in February 2023.
The applicants challenged the invocation of the Gangsters Act and contended that the underlying disputes were essentially civil and commercial in nature, arising from financial transactions relating to land deals. It was further contended that applicant Lalita Tyagi, a homemaker and daughter-in-law of Rajendra Tyagi, had no substantive allegations against her in the charge sheets and yet remained in judicial custody for approximately 80 days.
During the course of proceedings, the High Court extensively examined the legality of the process adopted for approval of gang charts under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Rules, 2021, particularly in Commissionerate districts where approval was being granted by the Commissioner of Police without participation of the District Magistrate.
The Court passed a series of detailed interim orders directing the Home Department and police authorities to furnish data regarding the functioning of the Commissionerate system, approval of gang charts, misuse of police powers, prosecution outcomes and accountability mechanisms against errant officers.
The Court also examined affidavits filed by the Home Department defending the Commissionerate system as a “national best practice” for urban policing and highlighting comparative data regarding anti-gangster enforcement in Commissionerate districts.
Court’s Observation
The Court observed that Uttar Pradesh had historically witnessed deep political penetration into the administrative machinery and that transfers, postings and promotions were frequently influenced by political patronage rather than merit-based governance.
The Court observed: “Officers perceived as loyalists are rewarded with preferred postings- urban Commissionerates, lucrative districts- while those demonstrating independence are transferred punitively to inconsequential assignments.”
The Bench further noted that procedural safeguards under criminal procedure laws were frequently bypassed, and judicial orders were often complied with only formally while being defeated in substance.
The Court observed: “Arrests are effected without due process, many times FIRs are registered or suppressed with ulterior motives, and preventive detention provisions are invoked arbitrarily, at the whims of officers.”
Referring to institutional accountability, the Court expressed serious concern over what it described as a culture of administrative impunity.
The Court referred to the Bikru massacre incident in which eight police personnel, including a Deputy Superintendent of Police, were killed during an ambush allegedly orchestrated by gangster Vikas Dubey. The Court noted that the officer supervising the operation had ultimately been visited only with a “formal caution” after departmental proceedings.
The Court observed: “This Court finds it difficult to reconcile such a disproportionately lenient outcome with the gravity of the supervisory failure involved.”
The Bench thereafter examined the role of the Home Department and senior bureaucratic authorities in maintaining institutional integrity.
The Court observed: “The Home Secretary, as the senior-most bureaucratic authority in the Home Department, occupies a pivotal position in this ecosystem.”
The Court further observed that certain officers who occupied the post of Home Secretary had, in practice, functioned as conduits for self-serving interests rather than acting as independent constitutional authorities.
The Bench observed: “Recommendations on postings, approvals of departmental proceedings, and responses to court proceedings have, in such instances, reflected considerations driven by personal or extrinsic calculations rather than dispassionate and constitutionally informed administrative judgment.”
The Court emphasised that selective investigation and selective prosecution were fundamentally antithetical to the rule of law and corroded public confidence in governance.
The Court also undertook an extensive examination of the present case on merits and found that the proceedings under the Gangsters Act were founded merely upon two FIRs involving financial transactions relating to land purchases and issuance of cheques.
The Court held that the material on record did not satisfy the ingredients of Section 2(b) of the Gangsters Act and that there was no material establishing the use of violence, intimidation or coercion so as to justify the invocation of the stringent anti-gangster legislation.
The Bench observed: “The accused may have committed offences of cheating and forgery; however, the same does not amount to, and cannot be construed as, running an organised gang.”
The Court additionally found that no material had been produced before it to justify the quantification of alleged earnings of the supposed gang or to substantiate the allegations made in the gang chart.
The Court also expressed serious concern regarding the arrest of Lalita Tyagi and observed that no material whatsoever had been placed on record to justify her arrest.
The Court observed: “The said arrest was patently illegal, arbitrary, and wholly unwarranted in law.”
The Bench held that the Commissioner of Police had failed to exercise supervisory control over subordinates and observed that all directions in matters of such nature flowed from the office of the Commissioner of Police itself.
While examining allegations made against the then Commissioner of Police, Ghaziabad, the Court clarified that it could not assess behavioural attributes of an individual officer in the absence of concrete material but observed that it remained for the Home Department to independently evaluate the suitability and operational effectiveness of officers for field postings.
Conclusion
The Allahabad High Court allowed the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and quashed the entire proceedings of Special Sessions Trial No. 3072 of 2023 arising out of Case Crime No. 101 of 2023 registered under Sections 2 and 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986.
The Court held that the allegations and material placed on record did not satisfy the statutory ingredients required for the invocation of the Gangsters Act and found the arrest of one of the accused to be arbitrary and unjustified.
While taking a lenient view regarding the then Commissioner of Police, Ghaziabad, the Court directed Inspector General of Police to remain vigilant and circumspect in the discharge of his official functions, keeping in mind the responsibilities attached to such office.
Cause Title: Rajendra Tyagi & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2026:AHC:125175)