The Supreme Court has directed the Uttar Pradesh government to initiate departmental proceedings within two weeks against every police officer who has served as the Superintendent of Police in Mau district since 2023. A bench comprising Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice R. Mahadevan issued the order after expressing grave displeasure over severe prosecution negligence and prolonged delay in an ongoing criminal trial. The court observed that producing witnesses before the trial court is an essential obligation of the investigating agency, stressing that an extended failure to discharge this duty cannot be ignored.
Sharp Displeasure Over Slow Examination of Witnesses
The bench observed that charges against six accused persons in a case initially registered in 2017 were formally framed on March 27, 2023. However, despite the lapse of considerable time, only two of the 54 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far. The judges noted that the prosecution had shown extreme laxity in securing the attendance of witnesses, which fundamentally compromised the pace of the criminal proceedings. The matter came to light when the incumbent Mau Superintendent of Police appeared before the bench in compliance with an August 10 order and submitted an affidavit dated August 29, confirming that only two witnesses had stepped into the witness box.
Accountability Fixed on District Police Chiefs
Taking a stern view of the institutional inaction, the Supreme Court instructed the state administration to initiate formal departmental proceedings against all officers posted as Mau Superintendent of Police from 2023 onwards. The bench underscored that the action directly pertains to their collective failure to oversee prosecution duties and ensure progress in trials. Issuing a stern caveat, the bench cautioned the state that if the issuance of charge memorandums turns out to be a mere administrative formality, the court will not hesitate to take action against the competent authority responsible for sanctioning them. The judges affirmed that the disciplinary process must establish substantive accountability rather than remaining confined to paper formalities.
Search for Missing Minor and November Deadline
The underlying case stems from the alleged kidnapping of a 14-year-old boy on September 27, 2017, after which a first information report was lodged by his father. Over the years, the boy has neither been traced nor have any remains been recovered, prompting the petitioner to demand an investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation or another independent agency. The petitioner approached the Supreme Court against a May 2025 order of the Allahabad High Court, which had disposed of his plea on the grounds that the police had completed the probe and submitted a charge sheet. Finding that the subsequent trial had effectively stalled, the top court scheduled the next hearing for November 16, ordering the Chief Secretary of Uttar Pradesh to submit a personally verified affidavit detailing the steps taken and the progress of the departmental inquiries against the concerned officers.
Follow for daily updates on cybercrime, corporate fraud, DFIR, hacking, investigations, and digital forensics
