SC slams UP police officer for defying its order, saying “I don’t follow any SC’s directions”
New Delhi: The Supreme Court has sharply criticised a police officer from Uttar Pradesh’s Pratapgarh district for openly defying its order and assaulting a petitioner who was under the Court’s interim protection.
The officer, identified as Gulaab Singh Sonkar, Station House Officer of Kandhai Police Station, had allegedly arrested and beaten the petitioner on April 23, 2025, despite a Supreme Court order dated March 28 granting protection from coercive action.
According to the complaint, when the petitioner showed the SHO a copy of the Court’s order, the officer responded in Hindi, saying, “Main kisi Supreme Court ka aadesh nahin manunga, mai tumhara sara High Court aur Supreme Court nikal dunga aaj” (I will not obey any Supreme Court order; I will get your entire High Court and Supreme Court removed today).
A bench comprising Justices Aravind Kumar and N.V. Anjaria, hearing the contempt petition, expressed deep concern over the blatant defiance, observing that such conduct “pollutes the stream of justice under the guise of a police uniform.” The bench noted that the state government’s inquiry, conducted by an officer not below the rank of ADGP, had confirmed the willful disobedience.
“Prima facie, there is willful disobedience of the order of this Court by the first respondent, which requires to be dealt with an iron hand,” the bench stated.
While the Court was prepared to issue a stern order against the officer, it deferred its decision after the Uttar Pradesh government’s counsel assured that immediate action would be taken based on the inquiry report. The Court accepted the request for time and scheduled the next hearing for November 7, 2025.
The Court order recorded: “The learned AAG for the State, having perused the inquiry report, has assured that the Government will act immediately and inform the Court of the action taken by the next date of hearing. The matter will be re-listed on November 7, 2025.”
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Deep societal faultlines persist despite 75 years of independence: Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
Judge cites denial of home to Muslim girl, opposition to Dalit women cooking mid-day meals
Hyderabad, February 23, 2026: Supreme Court judge Justice Ujjal Bhuyan has said that despite repeated affirmations of constitutional morality by courts, deep societal faultlines rooted in caste and religious discrimination continue to shape everyday realities in India.
Speaking at a seminar on “Constitutional Morality and the Role of District Judiciary” organised by the Telangana Judges Association and the Telangana State Judicial Academy in Hyderabad, Justice Bhuyan reflected on the gap between constitutional ideals and social practices.
He cited a recent instance involving his daughter’s friend, a PhD scholar at a private university in Noida, who was denied accommodation in South Delhi after her surname revealed her Muslim identity. According to Justice Bhuyan, the landlady bluntly informed her that no accommodation was available once her religious background became known.
In another example from Odisha, he referred to resistance by some parents to the government’s mid-day meal programme because the food was prepared by Dalit women employed as cooks. He noted that some parents had objected aggressively and refused to allow their children to consume meals cooked by members of the Scheduled Caste community.
Describing these incidents as “the tip of the iceberg,” Justice Bhuyan said they reveal how far society remains from the benchmark of constitutional morality even 75 years into the Republic. He observed that while the Constitution lays down standards of equality and dignity, the morality practised within homes and communities often diverges sharply from those values.
He emphasised that constitutional morality requires governance through the rule of law rather than the rule of popular opinion. Referring to the evolution of the doctrine through judicial decisions, he cited Naz Foundation v Union of India, in which the Delhi High Court read down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, holding that popular morality cannot restrict fundamental rights under Article 21. Though the judgment was later overturned in Suresh Kumar Koushal v Naz Foundation, the Supreme Court ultimately restored and expanded the principle in Navtej Singh Johar v Union of India, affirming that constitutional morality must prevail over majoritarian views.
“In our constitutional scheme, it is the constitutionality of the issue before the court that is relevant, not the dominant or popular view,” he said.
Justice Bhuyan also addressed the functioning of the district judiciary, underlining that trial courts are the first point of contact for most litigants and form the foundation of the justice delivery system. He stressed that due importance must be given to the recording of evidence and adjudication of bail matters.
Highlighting the role of High Courts, he said their supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is intended as a shield to correct grave jurisdictional errors, not as a mechanism to substitute the discretion or factual appreciation of trial judges.
He recalled that several distinguished judges, including Justice H R Khanna, Justice A M Ahmadi, and Justice Fathima Beevi, began their careers in the district judiciary.
On representation within the judicial system, Justice Bhuyan noted that Telangana has made significant strides in gender inclusion. Out of a sanctioned strength of 655 judicial officers in the Telangana Judicial Service, 478 are currently serving, of whom 283 are women, exceeding 50 per cent representation. He added that members of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, minority communities, and persons with disabilities are also represented in the state’s judiciary.
He observed that greater representation of women, marginalised communities, persons with disabilities, and sexual minorities would help make the judiciary more inclusive and reflective of India’s diversity. “The judiciary must represent all the colours of the rainbow and become a rainbow institution,” he said.
Justice Bhuyan also referred to the recent restoration by the Supreme Court of the requirement of a minimum three years of practice at the Bar for entry-level judicial posts. While acknowledging that the requirement ensures practical exposure, he cautioned that its impact on women aspirants, especially those from rural or small-town backgrounds facing social and financial constraints, would need to be carefully observed over time.
Concluding his address, he reiterated that the justice system must strive to bridge the gap between constitutional ideals and lived realities, ensuring that the rule of law remains paramount.
