‘Loyalty Towards Rulers, Not Constitution; Rule of Law Treated as an Inconvenience’: Allahabad High Court Strongly Criticizes Uttar Pradesh Police and Bureaucracy
In a significant judicial observation, the Allahabad High Court sharply criticized the functioning of the Uttar Pradesh Police and the state bureaucracy, stating that many officials appear to be more loyal to the ruling political establishment than to the Constitution of India. The court remarked that the rule of law is often treated as an inconvenience, warning that constitutional governance cannot be sacrificed for political expediency or administrative convenience.
The High Court observed that the primary duty of every public servant is to uphold the Constitution and the law, irrespective of which political party is in power. It emphasized that government officials, particularly police officers, are expected to function as impartial guardians of the legal system rather than as instruments to satisfy their political superiors. According to the court, when loyalty shifts from constitutional principles to the ruling dispensation, the foundations of democratic governance are weakened.
Expressing concern over the functioning of the state machinery, the bench noted that constitutional governance cannot be held hostage to individual convenience or political considerations. It stressed that administrative authorities must remain accountable to the Constitution and statutory law, not to transient political interests. The observations underscore the judiciary’s expectation that executive authorities exercise their powers fairly, independently, and within the limits prescribed by law.
The remarks are consistent with several recent decisions in which the Allahabad High Court has scrutinized police conduct. Earlier this year, the court criticized the practice of police officers allegedly shooting suspects in the legs during encounters and observed that law enforcement cannot assume the role of the judiciary, issuing guidelines to ensure accountability and warning that violations could amount to contempt of court.
Legal experts view the latest observations as a reaffirmation of a fundamental constitutional principle: the police and civil administration serve the Constitution and the public, not the government of the day. While the court’s remarks are observations made in the course of judicial proceedings and not, by themselves, findings of misconduct against every officer, they send a strong message emphasizing the independence of public institutions and the supremacy of the rule of law in a constitutional democracy.
