Supreme Court Flags “Pollution of Justice” as Inquiry Report Confirms UP Police Defied Judicial Protection
New Delhi, October 17, 2025: In a stern rebuke that underscores the tension between judicial authority and police power, the Supreme Court today held that a Uttar Pradesh police officer’s “wilful disobedience” of its order must be “dealt with iron hands.” The bench, comprising Justices Aravind Kumar and N.V. Anjaria, observed that an officer cannot be allowed to “pollute the stream of justice” under the guise of a uniform, signaling a firm stance against the alleged contempt.
The hearing centered on a contempt petition (CONNT.PET.(C) No. 408/2025) filed by Ram Sagar Tiwari against Police Officer Gulaab Singh Sonkar and the State of Uttar Pradesh. The genesis of the case lies in an earlier order by the Supreme Court on March 28, 2025, which granted Tiwari protection from any “coercive measures” in an ongoing investigation.
The Allegations of Defiance and Abuse
Defying this explicit protection, Tiwari was apprehended from his workplace on April 23, 2025. The petitioner alleged that he was dragged to the police station, arrested, detained overnight, and subjected to physical assault. Crucially, he contended that despite presenting the Supreme Court’s order to the Station House Officer (SHO), it was outrightly rejected.
The petition included a grave allegation: that the officer, in a blatant challenge to judicial authority, shouted in vernacular language, “Main kisi Supreme Court ka aadesh nahin manunga, mai tumhara sara High Court aur Supreme Court nikal dunga aaj” (I will not follow any order of the Supreme Court, I will get rid of all your High Court and Supreme Court today). The petitioner noted that even more offensive language was omitted from the petition to maintain the dignity of the court.
The Supreme Court’s Earlier Direction and the Damning Inquiry Report
Taking these allegations seriously, the Supreme Court, in a July 14, 2025 order, had directed the Principal Secretary (Home) of Uttar Pradesh to initiate an inquiry by an officer not below the rank of Additional Director General of Police (ADGP).
The sealed-cover report from the ADGP, Prayagraj, dated September 14, 2025, was perused by the bench today. Its conclusions were unequivocal and damning. The report stated:
- The arresting officers, including SHO Gulaab Chandra Sonkar, were “fully cognizant” of the Supreme Court’s protective order.
- The petitioner was “unnecessarily detained” at the police station prior to his formal arrest.
- Tiwari was not informed of his arrest as per due process, raising questions about procedural legality.
The Court’s Reaction and Next Steps
Upon reviewing this report, the bench minced no words. It stated that the findings “clearly indicate prima facie there is wilful disobedience of the Order of the Court by the first respondent.” The court’s observation that such conduct “requires to be dealt with iron hands” highlights the seriousness with which it views this challenge to its authority.
The learned Additional Advocate General (AAG), representing the Uttar Pradesh government, acknowledged the gravity of the situation. After perusing the report, he submitted that the state government would “act immediately” and apprise the Court of the action taken by the next date of hearing.
Granting this accommodation, the bench has relisted the matter for November 7, 2025. The court also clarified that while the Principal Secretary (Home) is a necessary party to ensure compliance, he is not the proper party for the contempt proceedings, which are primarily aimed at Officer Sonkar.
Conclusion:
Today’s proceedings represent a critical juncture in a case that has escalated from an allegation of illegal arrest to a full-blown contempt matter challenging the very foundation of judicial supremacy. The Supreme Court’s powerful language—”iron hands” and “pollute the stream of justice”—sends an uncompromising message about the sanctity of its orders. The ball is now in the court of the Uttar Pradesh government, which must demonstrate tangible and serious disciplinary action against its officers. The nation’s eyes will be on the November 7 hearing, awaiting to see how the state responds to this judicial reprimand and what concrete steps are taken to uphold the rule of law and restore the dignity of the judiciary.
Read more:-
Supreme Court Seeks Mohammed Shami’s Response on Wife’s Plea for Enhanced Maintenance
