Police Failure To Promptly Serve Summons, Execute Judicial Directives Impedes Smooth Functioning Of Legal System: Allahabad High Court

Recently, Justice Manju Rani Chauhan of the Allahabad High Court has observed that the delay in service of summons and execution of judicial orders by the police officers causes significant impediment to the smooth functioning of the legal system.

“Their apathy and inefficiency contribute to unwarranted delays, exacerbating the already staggering backlog of cases and severely hampering the expeditious dispensation of justice. This dereliction of duty not only prolongs legal proceedings, subjecting litigants to undue hardship and financial strain, but also erodes public confidence in the efficacy and integrity of the judicial process,” observed the Court.

Noting that the judiciary works in coordination with various stakeholders, including police, Justice Chauhan observed that “The failure of the police in this regard fosters a perception of institutional indifference and inefficacy, shaking the very foundation of public trust in the justice delivery mechanism.”

Summons were issued to the respondents in a case for quashing of chargesheet. However, the Additional Government Advocate present before the Court could not tell the status of service of summons. Since there was no report on the status of summons, the Court directed the Superintendent of Police, Fatehpur to be present before the Court and explain the reasons as to why the orders of the Court were not being complied with.

The Court noted that earlier in Vijay Kushwaha and 3 others v. State of U.P. and another, the Court had called for affidavit of the Superintendent of Police to explain the reason for unwarranted delays. Finding his reply unsatisfactory, the court summoned the Government Advocate for clarification. However, the Court noted their unawareness of the previous orders passed by the Court.

“This lack of awareness resulted in an inadequate affidavit, demonstrating not only negligence in compliance but also a troubling disregard for judicial directives, thereby further eroding the credibility of the legal process.”

Further, the Court noted that though the affidavit filed on behalf of the Superintendent of Police was dictated by the Government Advocate, his Private Secretary had changed the name on the first of the affidavit. This deliberate manipulation of records was considered to be “an improper delegation of authority but also highlighted a blatant disregard for procedural propriety within the office of the Government Advocate.”

The Court further noted that when faced with question of knowledge about the previous order, the Government Advocate deflected the responsibility on the Additional Government Advocate assigned to the court. Shifting of blame on colleagues showed unwillingness to take responsibility for lapses and lack in coordination between the government legal officers showed “deeper issue of institutional apathy toward judicial order,” held the Court.

Noting that the affidavit was filed by the Government Advocate without taking into account relevant judicial orders, Justice Chauhan observed that

“If the very individual responsible for upholding the rule of law exhibits such a lackadaisical attitude, it casts a shadow over the credibility of the state's legal apparatus and severely hampers the judicial process. The role of the Government Advocate is not merely procedural but carries a duty to ensure that legal proceedings are conducted with diligence and adherence to judicial precedent. However, when such a high-ranking officer demonstrates such disregard for due process, it sets a dangerous precedent for others aspiring to join the legal system.”

Emphasising that the role of Private Secretary to the Government Advocate is merely clerical, the Court held that he could not have made substantive changes to the affidavit which undermined the sanctity of judicial process and raised questions about the functioning of the Government Advocate's office.

“The events that have unfolded before this Court are both astonishing and deeply disconcerting, revealing a flagrant disregard for judicial authority and procedural integrity. The sheer negligence of responsible officials, coupled with unwarranted interference in legal proceedings, strikes at the very foundation of the justice system. Such egregious misconduct is utterly indefensible and demands immediate, uncompromising corrective action to prevent any future recurrence.”

The Court directed the Government Advocate to file a better affidavit before the next daate of listing.

Click Here To Read/Download Order