The Allahabad High Court sharply criticised the Principal Secretary (Home), Uttar Pradesh, for failing to file a personal affidavit despite a specific direction of the Court. The direction concerned the State’s action plan to protect the life and property of vulnerable senior citizens.
A Division Bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Siddharth Nandan said the officer’s conduct showed “absolute disdain” for judicial orders. The Court warned that officials who fail to comply with directions without justification may face coercive proceedings, including contempt.
The matter arose from a petition filed by Gulab Kali, an 80-year-old woman in ill health. She lives alone with her two granddaughters, one of whom is physically disabled. She approached the Court alleging that certain persons were attempting to illegally dispossess her from her ancestral abadi land.
Court’s Earlier Direction
On January 28, the Bench asked the Uttar Pradesh Government to clarify whether it had prepared a “comprehensive action plan” to safeguard vulnerable senior citizens. The Court referred to the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.
The Bench also sought details of the powers available to a District Magistrate under the 2007 Act to protect the life and property of senior citizens.
On February 17, the Court examined instructions sent by the Principal Secretary dated February 12. The Bench found that the response did not address its queries. Instead, the officer merely sought more time. The communication did not disclose the steps taken so far or provide reasons for seeking an extension.
“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 Bench observed.
The Court held that the conduct reflected “absolute disdain” for its order and deprecated it in the strongest terms.
The Bench added that the officer could have filed even a brief application supported by an affidavit explaining any genuine difficulty.
“Three Options” for Officials
The Court said that when a judicial direction is issued, a government official has three options:
- Comply with the direction;
- File a brief affidavit explaining why compliance is not possible; or
- Face consequences, including coercive proceedings.
The Bench noted that courts often direct personal appearance of officials only when the bureaucracy fails to treat judicial orders seriously. It added that such directions are less embarrassing than contempt proceedings.
The Court left it to the Advocate General’s Office to decide whether the order should be circulated among officers across the State.
Seven Days’ Time; Union and State Departments Impleaded
The Bench granted seven days to the Principal Secretary (Home) to file a proper response.
The Court also expanded the proceedings. It directed the impleadment of the Secretary, Department of Social Justice and Empowerment (Government of India). The Bench said the Union department has a definitive role in assisting the Court on the issue.
Further, the Court impleaded the Principal Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Uttar Pradesh. It directed the officer to file an affidavit detailing compliance with Section 22(2) of the 2007 Act. The department must also place its Standard Operating Procedure (SoP) on record.
Interim Protection to Petitioner
On the merits, the High Court granted interim relief to the petitioner.
The Court directed the District Magistrate, Prayagraj, to call for a report from the Station House Officer (SHO), Utraon Police Station. It instructed the SHO to personally meet the petitioner, accompanied by a female official, and assess whether she requires armed police protection.
