Police Officer Can't Be Held 'Negligent' For Failure To Act In Absence Of Information Requiring Action: Allahabad High Court
Sparsh Upadhyay
25 Sept 2026 3:30 PM IST

The Allahabad High Court has held that a police officer cannot be held 'negligent' merely for failing to act when there was no information or intelligence requiring him to take action.
"The Police do act on information. Absence of information leading to omission to act cannot be termed as negligence", a bench of Justice Arindam Sinha and Justice Satya Veer Singh said.
The Court thus set aside a punishment of censure imposed on a police officer who had been held responsible for failing to prevent the subsequent collection of explosives that later caused a fatal explosion.
The Court allowed the writ petition filed by the police officer and quashed both the Tribunal's judgment upholding the punishment and the consequential censure entry.
Case in brief
Briefly put, the petitioner was posted as Chowki In-charge at the relevant time. A large quantity of explosives was seized from the house of one Shadab on November 7, 2023.
A criminal case was registered under Section 286 IPC and Section 9B(1)(a) of the Explosives Act, 1884 in connection with the illegal manufacture and storage of firecrackers.
The investigation was subsequently entrusted to a Sub-Inspector, who filed a charge-sheet.
Thereafter, on January 22, 2024, an explosion took place at Shadab's house. A concrete slab fell in the explosion, resulting in the death of two minor children.
The charge against the petitioner was essentially that, despite the earlier recovery of a large quantity of explosives, he failed to inform higher authorities or take action in accordance with the rules when Shadab allegedly started collecting and manufacturing explosives again.
The conduct was consequently characterized as "negligence towards official duty, indiscipline, and arbitrariness" and a censure entry was imposed on him.
Before the High Court, the petitioner argued that he was merely the Chowki In-charge and not the Investigating Officer in the case concerning the original recovery of explosives.
He also specifically submitted that he had no information whatsoever regarding the subsequent collection of explosives at Shadab's house.
The State, however, argued that after the recovery of the explosives, the petitioner was aware of the illegal manufacture of firecrackers and was required to maintain strict vigil over the persons and houses from which explosive substances and manufacturing material had earlier been recovered.
The disciplinary finding noted that both the November 2023 recovery and the January 2024 explosion occurred within the jurisdiction of the police outpost under the petitioner's charge.
It therefore held that it was his "bounden responsibility" to keep strict vigil.
High Court's order and observations
The Court took note of the fact that there was no material to show that any information had been received at the police outpost regarding the subsequent movement or collection of explosives.
"There was stockpiling of large quantity of explosives without detection until information was received, followed by raid and recovery", the Bench noted.
It further observed that after the initial recovery, explosives must have been collected again, eventually leading to the explosion on January 22, 2024. However, the bench said that the State was unable to demonstrate any dereliction of duty based on information or intelligence received regarding the subsequent stockpiling.
The Court added that if there was no information, his omission to act cannot be termed as negligence. The Court also noted that the record showed the petitioner's prompt action after the explosion had occurred.
In view of these findings, the Bench held that the basis for treating the petitioner's conduct as negligent was not established.
The High Court accordingly set aside and quashed the Tribunal's judgment and order of March 2026 as well as the punishment imposed upon the petitioner.
The writ petition was consequently allowed and disposed of.
Case title - Naresh Singh vs. The State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 755
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 755

