The Supreme Court on June 11, 2026 stayed an Allahabad High Court order that censured UP Additional Chief Secretary (Home) Sanjay Prasad IAS for allegedly obstructing police reforms — shielding his career from immediate damage.
A bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Atul S. Chandurkar granted permission to file the Special Leave Petition, issued notice to respondents, and listed the matter for hearing after ten weeks, according to LiveLaw.
Background: How We Got Here
The controversy originates in a habeas corpus petition filed by one Megha Raikwar under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking recovery of her 15-year-old daughter who was allegedly enticed away by an accused named Kallu on June 10, 2025.
The petition — Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 946 of 2025 (Neutral Citation: 2026:AHC:124916) — came before a single-judge bench of Justice Vinod Diwakar at the Allahabad High Court, as reported by Bar & Bench.
- In May 2025, the Allahabad High Court had separately delivered a landmark judgment in Subhash Chandra & Others v. State of U.P. & Another [(2025) SCC OnLine All 3029], laying down detailed standards for criminal investigations across Uttar Pradesh.
- Nearly a year later, Justice Diwakar found those reform directions remained largely unimplemented — and turned scrutiny toward the officer administratively responsible.
- The State disclosed its intention to challenge the Subhash Chandra judgment before the Supreme Court only after the High Court pressed for compliance, according to Verdictum and LawBeat — and then used the proposed SLP as a basis to resist enforcement without diligently pursuing it.
Sanjay Prasad is a 1995-batch IAS officer of the UP cadre, currently serving as Additional Chief Secretary (Home), Government of Uttar Pradesh, per India Legal.
The Ruling — Key Findings
On June 3, 2026, Justice Vinod Diwakar passed a 25-page judgment censuring Sanjay Prasad and directing the Registrar (Compliance) to transmit a certified copy of the order — along with the Subhash Chandra ruling — to the Secretary, DoPT, for record and consideration by the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (ACC), as reported by LiveLaw and LawBeat.
The High Court was unsparing in its language. Justice Diwakar wrote: “The conduct of Shri Sanjay Prasad… prima facie reflects a deliberate and calculated attempt to undermine the authority of this court.”
The judgment also went further in scope, recommending that DoPT develop a regulatory framework incorporating a doctrine of superior responsibility for the civil services. As Justice Diwakar put it: “Superior officers must be held accountable for the conduct and performance of their subordinates, as it is their professional and administrative responsibility to ensure the effective delivery of public services.”
The minor girl was ultimately recovered and restored to her parents. The High Court disposed of the habeas corpus petition on merits but retained its adverse observations regarding Prasad, according to LiveLaw and Law Trend.
Sanjay Prasad challenged the order before the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution, filing SLP Diary No. 35822/2026 — Sanjay Prasad v. Megha Raikwar.
Reactions & What’s Next
The Supreme Court’s bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Atul S. Chandurkar acted swiftly, passing the stay on the very day the SLP was mentioned, per ProKerala and ETV Bharat.
The bench’s order was direct: “Permission to file SLP is granted. Issue notice, returnable in ten weeks. In the meanwhile, directions issued by the High Court under the impugned order shall remain stayed.”
The stay specifically covers the High Court’s direction requiring DoPT to consider Prasad’s adverse findings while assessing his suitability for future assignments before the ACC — the most consequential part of the order for his career, according to LiveLaw and India Legal.
The matter is now listed before the Supreme Court after ten weeks. The broader question of the Subhash Chandra police reform directions — and the state’s compliance with them — remains a live issue before the Allahabad High Court in separate proceedings.
More legal news at The Courtroom.
What did the Allahabad High Court order against Sanjay Prasad IAS?
On June 3, 2026, Justice Vinod Diwakar passed a 25-page judgment censuring Sanjay Prasad for allegedly obstructing police reforms and directed the DoPT to consider the adverse findings when assessing his suitability for future assignments before the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet. The order arose from non-compliance with police reform guidelines issued in the May 2025 Subhash Chandra judgment.
What exactly did the Supreme Court stay on June 11, 2026?
A bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Atul S. Chandurkar stayed all directions issued by the Allahabad High Court in its June 3, 2026 order, specifically including the direction to forward Prasad’s adverse findings to DoPT for ACC consideration. The court also granted permission to file the SLP (Diary No. 35822/2026), issued notice to respondents, and listed the matter after ten weeks.
What is the doctrine of superior responsibility recommended by the Allahabad HC?
Justice Vinod Diwakar recommended that DoPT develop a regulatory framework under which senior civil servants are held accountable for the conduct and performance of their subordinates. The court held that it is the professional and administrative responsibility of superior officers to ensure effective delivery of public services.
What was the original habeas corpus case that triggered this controversy?
Megha Raikwar filed Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 946 of 2025 before the Allahabad High Court seeking recovery of her 15-year-old daughter, who was allegedly enticed away by an accused named Kallu on June 10, 2025. The girl was eventually recovered and restored to her parents, but Justice Diwakar widened scrutiny to examine UP police reform compliance, leading to the censure of Sanjay Prasad.
Disclaimer
Disclaimer: This article is for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. Laws may change or vary by case — consult a qualified lawyer before acting. The Courtroom is not liable for any reliance on this content.
