BackLAW
Allahabad High Court raps UP Police over lapses in citizen safety
The Allahabad High Court criticized Uttar Pradesh Police for failing to sufficiently assess threats to a citizen's life and ordered a new affidavit detailing concrete security steps. The bench warned that mere prevention through prosecutions cannot revive a life, and scheduled the matter for the next hearing.
Why It Matters
The ruling underscores judicial oversight on police threat assessment and the need for proactive protection of individuals at risk, not just post-incident action.
Timeline
3 Events
May 9, 2026: Court orders fresh affidavit with concrete security measures; cautions police action is not life-saving
May 9, 2026
The bench expressed that the response from the then-SSP was far below the standard expected. It stressed that the threat to the petitioner’s life required preventive security measures rather than reliance on post-incident prosecutions. The court directed the SSP to file another affidavit outlining what security measures are in mind to protect the petitioner, noting that such steps cannot be scheduled like routine events. The matter was listed for the next hearing on May 13.
May 4, 2026: High Court finds SSP affidavit on threat perception 'elusive' and inadequate
May 4, 2026
The court perused the affidavit and found it elusive as it mostly detailed the origin of the dispute and preventive action under sections 170/126/135 of the BNSS against both sides. It noted the understanding of the dispute may have been left to the discretion of a police official. The affidavit also claimed that an FIR was registered, a chargesheet filed, and beat constables directed to patrol the village, with a conclusion that the village was peaceful and that the core issue was land partition and family enmity.
April 6, 2026: Allahabad High Court hearing directs SSP to file personal affidavit on threat perception and security measures
April 6, 2026
A writ petition filed by Nankaram of Badaun was heard by a division bench comprising Justice J J Munir and Justice Tarun Saxena. The court directed the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) Ankita Sharma to file a personal affidavit outlining steps taken to evaluate the petitioner’s threat perception and to consider securing protective measures. The petitioner sought safety from five persons over a family land dispute and had alleged indifference by police when seeking protection.