In a strongly worded and far-reaching judgment delivered on 3rd June, 2026, the Allahabad High Court allowed a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, set aside the order of the Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Bareilly, refusing No Objection Certificate (NOC) for passport renewal, and simultaneously issued a series of pointed judicial observations calling upon the State of Uttar Pradesh to adopt a doctrine of 'superior responsibility' for senior bureaucrats who fail to prevent or punish corruption and non-compliance with court orders.
The petitioner, Avnesh Kumar Agarwal, faced two FIRs — FIR No. 1634/2007 and FIR No. 318/2007 — registered at Police Stations Najibabad and Mandawali respectively, involving allegations of corruption, forgery and destruction of government records in collusion with officers of the Trade Tax Department, District Bijnor. The petitioner, a businessman, was one among 25 accused. The chargesheet in FIR No. 1634/2007 was filed only after an inordinate delay of 18 years in 2024, and proceedings thereunder had already been stayed by a Coordinate Bench of the Court on 21.11.2025, taking note of the frivolous and delayed nature of the case. When the petitioner applied for NOC to renew his passport, the Special Judge, Bareilly, rejected the application on 20.09.2025, prompting the present petition.
During the course of proceedings, the Court also took up compliance with its earlier directions in Manish Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. (2023 SCC OnLine All 2501), wherein a Division Bench had directed the State to constitute a High-Powered Committee under the Chief Secretary to frame guidelines for monitoring investigation of FIRs registered by government departments in corruption cases.
Petitioner argued that since the chargesheet was filed after 18 years, proceedings had been stayed, allegations were primarily against government officials, and he was already on bail, there was no justification for withholding the NOC. Refusal amounted to undue harassment of a businessman with no substantive criminal role.
State highlighted the gravity of the allegations, including arson of a government office to destroy records, and urged the Court to take a cautious view.
The single bench of Justice Vinod Diwakar of High Court of Judicature at Allahabad while placing relaince on landmark judgment of Manish Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors., (2023) SCC OnLine All 2501 has delivered observations of significant constitutional and administrative importance:
- The Committee under the Chief Secretary was constituted only after nearly two years' delay, well beyond the six-month timeline directed by the Court in Manish Kumar Singh, and only because the present case re-agitated the issue — the Court noted this was "unfortunate."
- The Court enumerated several options available to it — contempt proceedings, personal appearance of the Chief Secretary, adverse remarks, exemplary costs — but consciously exercised restraint, noting: "Such judicial restraint must not be mistaken for judicial indifference."
- The Court called upon the State to evolve a doctrine of 'superior responsibility' wherein senior officers are held accountable — and in appropriate cases, criminally responsible — for failure to prevent or punish acts of their subordinates, including corruption, fraud, willful suppression of records and contempt of government orders.
- Red-tapism is driven by bureaucrats who treat retention of discretionary power as an end in itself, undermining legal certainty and rule of law
The Court directed the Chief Secretary to place its order before the Hon'ble Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh for personal consideration of concerns raised in paragraph 31 of the judgment. No response had been received from the Regional Passport Authority, Bareilly, till the date of pronouncement — also noted as a lapse.
Case Details
Case No.: Matter Under Article 227 No. 13425 of 2025
Bench: Hon'ble Justice Vinod Diwakar (Single Judge)
Petitioner: Avnesh Kumar Agarwal
Respondents: Union of India & 3 Others
READ ORDER
Picture Source :
