After Allahabad High Court's directives, the Uttar Pradesh government has issued a circular restraining police from directly contacting parties and lawyers in pending matters.
A PIL was filed by 90-year-old Gauri Shankar Saroj of Jaunpur alleging that local police personnel threatened him to withdraw his petition against alleged encroachment of Gaon Sabha land.
The police had also allegedly raided his house in retaliation.
In its circular dated July 25, the state government issued comprehensive statewide guidelines to prevent police interference in sub-judice (pending) matters.
These guidelines strictly prohibit police personnel from contacting petitioners or their advocates concerned with pending matters without lawful authority and prior sanction from a competent officer or court.
Earlier, the high court had taken a very serious note of the allegations made by the petitioner. Subsequently, on July 15, the Uttar Pradesh government had sought 10 days time to formulate statewide directions on the issue.
Finally, during the course of hearing of the PIL on July 28, the state government informed the court that it has issued a comprehensive state-wide circular in this regard on July 25.
Taking the personal affidavit filed by the Uttar Pradesh Principal Secretary (home)on record, Justice JJ Munir termed the guidelines as "commendable" and "laudable".
However, the court also voiced concerns about their implementation.
"This court, not without reason has apprehensions that the guidelines like many others would be forgotten in course of time. They would gather dust with the bureaus of district officials where they are meant to be implemented," the court observed.
In this backdrop, the court also directed the additional chief standing counsel to consult state officials and then make suggestions about how to implement these guidelines consistently and regularly.
The court in its order dated July 28 also took on record an affidavit by the Superintendent of Police, Jaunpur regarding disciplinary action against the officers allegedly involved in the intimidation of the petitioner and his lawyer.
The court will hear this matter next on July 31.
(Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
You’ve reached your limit of {{free_limit}} free articles this month.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
Already subscribed? Log in
Subscribe to read the full story →
Smart Quarterly
₹900
3 Months
₹300/Month
Smart Essential
₹2,700
1 Year
₹225/Month
Super Saver
₹3,900
2 Years
₹162/Month
Renews automatically, cancel anytime
Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans
Exclusive premium stories online
Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors


Complimentary Access to The New York Times
News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic
Business Standard Epaper
Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share


Curated Newsletters
Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox
Market Analysis & Investment Insights
In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor


Archives
Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997
Ad-free Reading
Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements


Seamless Access Across All Devices
Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app
)