Can Police Approve Gang Charts Without DM? Allahabad High Court Flags 'Unfettered' Discretion In Commissionerate System; Summons ACS

A bench of Justice Vinod Diwakar has directed the top bureaucrat to explain the repeated failure of the Home Department to provide justification for excluding District Magistrates from the joint meetings contemplated under the State Gangsters Act for the districts which fall under the Police Commissionerate system.

In a strong remark, the Court said: "even the most well-intentioned and ostensibly noble ideas are liable to miscarry when placed in the hands of poor administrators namely, those who are inadequately trained and lacking in institutional competence, yet highly ambitious and adept at manoeuvring constitutional authorities"

Case in brief

Briefly put, the single judge was dealing with a Section 482 CrPC plea filed by Rajendra Tyagi and 2 others, who raised issues concerning the alleged misuse of police powers in invoking the provisions of the UP Gangsters Act against the applicants.

The applicants essentially argued that in non-Commissionerate districts, Rule 5(3)(a) of the U.P. Gangsters Rules, 2021 mandates a joint meeting between the District Magistrate (DM) and the Superintendent of Police (SP) to record subjective satisfaction before approving a gang chart.

However, the applicants argued that in the Ghaziabad Commissionerate, this power was exercised solely by the Commissioner of Police and the DM was not being included in the process.

Previous orders in the case

Although the case was listed multiple times last year, the State did not provide an appropriate justification for excluding the DM from the joint meeting clause. The HC repeatedly took exception to this.

In fact, in its order dated March 3, 2025, the Court had prima facie observed that the practice adopted by the Commissioner of Police was in contravention of Rule 5(3)(a) of the UP Gangsters Rules, 2021, as well as prior notifications issued by the State Government from time to time.

In light of this, the court had also called for an explanation from the state's top authorities.

Further, on November 27, 2025, the state defended the exclusion of the DM by arguing that in the Commissionerate system, sophisticated organised crime, including complex financial fraud, real estate syndicates and cyber extortion, take place.

It was submitted that there was a 'noble objective' behind adopting the Commissionerate system, which is a national best practice in certain districts of UP. It was asserted that its main aim was to achieve zero tolerance for crime and criminals, in line with Delhi, Mumbai, Bengaluru and Hyderabad.

It was also argued that data confirmed that these areas bear a disproportionate share of the national crime rate, necessitating a highly specialised and agile response mechanism.

The UP Government argued that, by minimising the administrative layer of the DM, it sought to ensure that law enforcement agencies could rapidly dismantle fast-moving criminal networks without bureaucratic delays.

The bench, however, was not convinced by this argument. It clarified that it was concerned with the recurring misuse of police powers and the 'over-application' of stringent provisions of law to street-level and petty offenders.

The bench also noted that actual gangsters and organised crime syndicates are continuously operating, and they remain largely unaffected by a lack of systemic policy response.

Therefore, the bench had sought an affidavit on the empirical data gathered from the district(s) and/or Commissionerate(s) on the basis of which the Department had arrived at its subjective satisfaction that, under the Commissionerate system, the DM should be excluded from the joint meeting.

January 9 order

Now, on January 9, when the matter again came up for a hearing, the bench expressed deep dissatisfaction with the 'lackadaisical' manner in which the state government had approached the matter.

The bench noted that the administration's approach was based on the 'erroneous' assumption that the power to issue notifications could be exercised without due application of mind, by resorting to unfettered discretion and without examining the consequential effects thereof.

The bench, however, clarified that it cannot remain a 'mute' spectator and would not hesitate to exercise the powers vested in it in the interest of the citizens of the State and for upholding the sanctity and authority of the judicial process.

“This Court is mindful of the fact, even the most well-intentioned and ostensibly noble ideas are liable to miscarry when placed in the hands of poor administrators namely, those who are inadequately trained and lacking in institutional competence, yet highly ambitious and adept at manoeuvring constitutional authorities,” the bench further remarked,

The Bench clarified that discretion conferred on civil servants by the legislature must be exercised strictly in furtherance of the policy and object underlying the parent statute, in this case, the U.P. Gangsters Act.

Thus, the High Court issued a show-cause notice to the Additional Chief Secretary (Home) to explain the reasons and disclose any “legal impediments” that have prevented the Department from furnishing the pointed details sought by the Court.

The matter has been listed for fresh hearing on January 20, 2026.