The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court has summoned Uttar Pradesh Principal Secretary (Home) Sanjay Prasad to appear in person on July 31, 2026, for the framing of contempt charges in a Custodial Death Compensation Case. Justice Saurabh Lavania issued the direction after finding alleged willful non-compliance with binding judicial orders on custodial death compensation and policy reforms.
Contempt Notice Over Failure to Follow Court Directions
Justice Saurabh Lavania heard the contempt application in Prema Devi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. & Ors. The petition alleged that the State ignored two clear directions issued by a Division Bench comprising Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Manjive Shukla on February 20, 2026.
First, the State did not pay the full court-ordered compensation of ₹10 lakh to the legal heir of a minor who died in prison custody. Second, the Home Department failed to frame standardized guidelines for calculating compensation in custodial death cases, despite a specific judicial direction.
Justice Lavania observed:
“Thus, this Court is of the view that the Officer concerned is liable to be punished in terms of Section 12 of the Act of 1971 and therefore presence of the Officer concerned namely Sri Sanjay Prasad, Principal Secretary, Home Department, Govt. of U.P., Civil Secretariat, Lucknow is required before this Court.”
Background of the Case
Prema Devi filed the original writ petition after her minor son died inside a district prison on February 20, 2024. Authorities had re-arrested him because he failed to appear in a 2016 POCSO case. She alleged that prison officials physically assaulted her son and demanded money from him.
Officials recorded the death as suicide by hanging. However, the Division Bench rejected the State’s argument that a self-inflicted death relieved prison authorities of responsibility. Instead, the Court relied on Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa and Re-Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons. Consequently, it held that an unnatural death in custody attracts strict public law liability under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Court’s Directions and Compliance Status
The February 20 judgment directed the State to pay ₹10 lakh to the deceased minor’s mother within three weeks. However, the authorities did not release the full amount.
The Court also instructed the State to create objective compensation guidelines based on the multiplier method under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The proposed framework would consider factors such as the deceased’s age, expected income, and number of dependents. Nevertheless, the Home Department has not notified any such guidelines.
As a result, the Court issued summons under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. It also directed the Principal Secretary (Home) to appear personally on July 31, 2026, for the framing of contempt charges.
Delay in Framing Compensation Guidelines
The High Court expressed concern over the government’s continued inaction. It noted that nearly five months had passed since the February judgment. Yet, the Home Department neither finalized the compensation framework nor cleared the petitioner’s claim.
According to the Court, standardized guidelines would reduce arbitrary ex gratia payments and promote consistency in future claims. Therefore, the Custodial Death Compensation Case has become significant for shaping a transparent compensation mechanism in custodial death matters.
The matter will now come up on July 31, 2026, when the Court is expected to frame formal contempt charges against the Principal Secretary (Home).
