'Absolute Disdain': High Court Slams UP Govt Over Senior Citizens Protection Plan; Warns Bureaucracy Of Coercive Actions

Terming the official's conduct as reflecting an "absolute disdain" for court orders, a bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Siddharth Nandan issued a stern warning to the bureaucracy across the State.

The Court said that the officials must be ready to face coercive proceedings, including contempt, if they fail to comply with HC's directions or fail to provide valid reasons for seeking a time extension.

The stinging remarks came from the HC as the Principal Secy failed to file a personal affidavit in response to the Court's order seeking clarification as to whether the State Government has prepared a "comprehensive action plan" for the protection of life and property of senior citizens as per the mandate of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.

The bench had passed the order on January 28 while hearing a plea filed by a senior citizen named Gulab Kali, who is suffering from ill health and is living alone with her two granddaughters, one of whom is physically disabled.

She had approached the High Court apprehending a cause of action by certain persons who she claimed were trying to dispossess her illegally and take over her ancestral abadi land.

In its order, the bench had also asked the Secy as tp what actions a District Magistrate can take to protect the lives and property of vulnerable senior citizens under the 2007 Act.

On February 17, the Court noted that instructions received on February 12 from the Principal Secretary merely sought additional time without offering any substantive response.

"The instructions are completely bereft of any specific reasons as to why extension of time should be granted. It also does not disclose the steps taken till date...The conduct of the Principal Secretary (Home) reflects an absolute disdain of the order passed by this court which it deprecates in the strongest possible terms," the bench observed.

The Court added that if there was a genuine shortage of time, the official could have filed a simple one-page application supported by an affidavit explaining the reasons.

Taking a serious view of the matter, the bench stated that the officials have only three options when the court passes an order giving them directions:

1. Comply with the direction,
2. File a one-page application supported by an affidavit stating the reasons why it cannot be complied with (e.g., paucity of time, lack of competence).
3. Face all consequences, including coercive proceedings initiated by the court.

On the practice of summoning officials to the court, the bench noted thus,

"The court is cognizant of the inconvenience caused to the officials when they are asked to appear before this court in person, but such a direction is given more out of helplessness and on account of the bureaucracy not taking the court seriously...which this court considers is less embarrassing to the officer than face a proceeding for contempt for non-compliance."

In its order, the Court also expressed its angst in a manner in which additional time had been sought without giving any reasons as to why additional time should be granted and what has been done till date and what are the difficulties coming in the way of complying with the order.

The Court stressed that whether this order had to be circulated amongst the various officers of the State, was left to the discretion of the AG Office.

In view of this, the Court granted seven days' time to the Principal Secretary to file a response in the matter.

However, the Court expanded the scope of the proceedings and directed the impleadment of the Secretary, Department of Social Justice and Empowerment (Government of India), noting that they have a 'definitive' role in assisting the HC over this matter.

Additionally, the Principal Secretary of the Social Welfare Department (UP) was also impleaded in the matter and directed to file an affidavit clearly stating the steps taken in compliance with Section 22(2) of the Act.

The Court specifically asked the department to place its Standard Operating Procedure (SoP) on record.

On the merits of the case, the Court granted interim relief to the petitioner by directing the District Magistrate, Prayagraj, to call for a report from the Station House Officer (SHO) of Utraon Police Station.

The SHO has been instructed to personally interact with the 80-year-old petitioner, accompanied by a female official, and decide whether armed policemen are required for her protection.

Furthermore, the Court asked the District Magistrate to file a personal affidavit detailing the steps taken to ensure the petitioner's safety.

The matter has now been listed for a further hearing on March 10, 2026.