'Downright Impertinence': Allahabad High Court Slams SSP For Deputing Sub-Inspector To Reply To CJM, Seeks Explanation

A bench of Justice J.J. Munir and Justice Sanjiv Kumar, termed the act "downright impertinence" and further directed the SSP to file a personal affidavit explaining why separate civil contempt proceedings should not be initiated against him for flouting HC's order.

The court was essentially dealing with a criminal appeal pertaining to 1984 where the sole appellant (Anand Prakash) has gone missing.

In an order passed on December 10, 2025, the High Court had directed the issuance of a bailable warrant against the appellant to secure his presence.

The Bench had explicitly ordered that the warrant should not be returned unexecuted unless the Police are in a position to say on oath, with evidence annexed, that the appellant has died or left the country.

Furthermore, the Superintendent of Police, Badaun, was ordered to ensure service wherever the appellant might be hiding or relocated.

On December 18, 2025, the Court noted that the SSP had not only failed to execute the order personally but also failed to communicate with the concerned CJM.

Essentially, in compliance with the HC's order, the CJM, Badaun, had addressed a specific memo directly to the SSP. However, instead of responding personally to the judicial officer, the SSP purportedly deputed his subordinate to address a letter to the CJM.

Taking exception to the same, the Court observed thus:

"It is downright impertinence prima facie on the Senior Superintendent of Police's part to ask a Sub-Inspector serving in a police station to write a letter to the Chief Judicial Magistrate of the district when the Chief Judicial Magistrate had written a memo to the Senior Superintendent of Police himself under our orders."

The Bench further remarked that even if the SSP was writing regarding a process of the Court, he should have personally responded by a memo rather than asking a 'sundry' Sub-Inspector to write back to the CJM.

Apart from this, the High Court expressed deep dissatisfaction with the police report, which stated that the appellant could not be found.

The High Court said that the report was in direct violation of its order, wherein it was stated that the warrant could only be returned unexecuted if the police could prove on oath that the appellant had died or left the country.

“None of those contingencies have been reported. In the circumstances, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Badaun, is prima facie in contempt of our order as well”, the bench said.

Thus, rejecting the police official's casual approach, the Bench has ordered the SSP, Badaun, to file a personal affidavit by 2:00 PM today (December 19). The officer is required to show cause on three specific points:

1. Why a separate civil contempt matter may not be directed to be registered against him and directed to be placed before the learned Judge holding the roster in contempt matters;
2. Why has he failed to apprehend the appellant and produce him before us when the two contingencies, wherein alone he could have reported failure, were indicated in our order dated 10.12.2025; and,
3. Why did he not report back to the Chief Judicial Magistrate by his own memo instead of asking a sub-inspector to write to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate?

The Court has also warned that in default of filing the affidavit, the SSP shall appear in person before the Court.