Judiciary Scrutinizes State Action: High Courts Challenge UP on Vigilantism and MP Police on Flawed Investigations

A series of powerful judicial interventions across India's high courts and the Supreme Court have cast a sharp light on the critical issues of state accountability, procedural fairness in investigations, and the executive's duty to uphold constitutional mandates. From the Allahabad High Court demanding answers from the Uttar Pradesh government on its seven-year delay in implementing anti-lynching directives to the Madhya Pradesh High Court halting a trial due to a "prima facie" flawed police probe, the judiciary is actively reinforcing its role as a bulwark against executive apathy and investigative overreach.

Allahabad High Court Demands Accountability on Anti-Lynching Directives

In a significant move underscoring the gap between judicial pronouncements and executive implementation, the Allahabad High Court has sternly questioned the Uttar Pradesh government's "apparent inaction" in enforcing the Supreme Court's landmark 2018 judgment in Tehseen S. Poonawalla v. Union of India . The ruling had laid down a comprehensive framework of preventive, remedial, and punitive measures to combat the menace of mob lynching and vigilantism.

A division bench of Justice Abdul Moin and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary expressed its dismay that nearly seven years after the apex court's binding directions, the state's compliance remains ambiguous. The court observed that "cases pertaining to vigilantism still continue to see the light of the day," signaling a persistent failure to curb such violence.

The issue arose during a hearing of a plea challenging an FIR lodged under the U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955. The Court expanded the scope of its scrutiny from the individual case to the larger systemic malaise of cow vigilantism and the casual invocation of the Cow Slaughter Act. It noted that police officers continue to file FIRs “left and right” under the Act, often without a prima facie case being made out, despite clear legal precedents.

Government Order vs. Police Circular: A Constitutional Distinction

The government's defense, presenting a circular issued by the Director General of Police (DGP) in July 2018, failed to satisfy the bench. The court drew a crucial constitutional distinction between an internal police circular and a formal Government Order (GO). It held that the Supreme Court’s directions were addressed to the "State Government," necessitating a formal policy decision reflecting the executive power of the state under Article 162 of the Constitution.

"Once the directions of the Apex Court are to the State Government, consequently, a Government Order should have been issued in this regard which should reflect the official decision, policy or administrative directions of the Government," the Bench observed. It concluded that the DGP's circular "prima facie, does not conform to the direction as issued by the Apex Court."

The court has now directed both the Principal Secretary (Home) and the DGP to file personal affidavits within three weeks, detailing the concrete steps taken to implement the Poonawalla guidelines. Failure to comply will result in their personal appearance before the court. This assertive stance places the onus squarely on the highest echelons of the state's executive and police leadership to demonstrate tangible action.

Madhya Pradesh High Court Slams "Impermissible" Investigation, Stays Trial

In another striking example of judicial oversight, a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, comprising Chief Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Vinay Saraf, intervened to halt a criminal trial following severe irregularities in the police investigation into the death of a three-year-old child.

The case involved a tragic road accident where a car struck a family on a scooter, leading to the child's death. The father alleged that crucial details were omitted from the FIR and his witness statement was altered in the chargesheet to favor the accused.

Upon examining the case diary, the High Court expressed shock at the Investigating Officer's (IO) methodology. Instead of conducting an impartial investigation, the IO appeared to be cross-examining the complainant and eyewitnesses to discredit their testimony.

The bench stated, "The questions prima facie are not in nature of clarification. However, appear to be put to discredit the statements given under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. or to bring out certain discrepancies... This kind of a conduct and investigation is unheard of and impermissible in law."

Finding that the investigation was "not done in a manner as known to the criminal procedure law," the court stayed the trial proceedings and summoned the Superintendent of Police to appear personally. This intervention protects the integrity of the judicial process and sends a strong message against investigative bias and procedural impropriety.

Supreme Court on Evidence: Magistrates Can Compel Voice Samples from Witnesses

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court has delivered a significant ruling that clarifies and expands the judiciary's powers in the investigative process. In Rahul Agarwal v. The State of West Bengal & Anr. , a bench led by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai held that a Magistrate has the authority to order the collection of voice samples from not only an accused person but also a witness.

The Court reaffirmed its 2019 precedent in Ritesh Sinha v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr , emphasizing that the term "person" used in that judgment was deliberately chosen to encompass both accused and witnesses. The ruling rests on the critical legal distinction between "material evidence" (like voice samples, fingerprints, or DNA) and "testimonial evidence" (compelled testimony).

The bench clarified that compelling a person to provide a voice sample does not violate the fundamental right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) of the Constitution. Justice K. Vinod Chandran, authoring the judgment, explained that such samples are physical evidence that must be compared with other investigative material to become incriminating, thus not constituting a "testimonial compulsion."

The judgment also noted that the newly enacted Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) explicitly codifies this power in Section 349, lending legislative weight to the court's interpretation. By overturning a Calcutta High Court decision, the Supreme Court also reiterated the principle that the pendency of a reference before a larger bench does not nullify an existing binding precedent.

Analysis and Implications for the Legal Fraternity

These three developments, while distinct in their facts, collectively highlight a judiciary that is increasingly unwilling to tolerate executive lethargy or procedural shortcuts by law enforcement.

• Enforcing Judicial Mandates: The Allahabad High Court's actions are a classic case of continuing mandamus, where the court retains jurisdiction to ensure its orders (and those of the apex court) are implemented in letter and spirit. For legal practitioners, this reinforces the court's role as an enforcer of constitutional obligations and provides a potent avenue to challenge governmental inaction.

• Upholding Investigative Fairness: The MP High Court’s intervention is a crucial reminder of the bedrock principles of criminal procedure. An investigation is a quest for truth, not an adversarial exercise by the police against witnesses. The court's decision to halt the trial and summon the SP underscores that procedural fidelity is non-negotiable and provides a strong precedent for lawyers to challenge flawed and biased investigations at an early stage.

• Clarity in Evidentiary Procedure: The Supreme Court's ruling on voice samples provides much-needed clarity for both prosecutors and defense attorneys. It solidifies the legal framework for collecting crucial material evidence while carefully balancing it against fundamental rights. This decision strengthens the investigative toolkit available to law enforcement but does so within a judicially supervised framework, ensuring due process is followed.

Together, these rulings paint a picture of a vigilant judiciary actively shaping the contours of criminal justice and administrative law. They serve as a powerful signal to the executive and police forces that constitutional and procedural mandates are not optional and that the courts will not hesitate to intervene to uphold the rule of law.