Prayagraj: The troubles for former Uttar Pradesh Director General of Police (DGP) Prashant Kumar, a 1990-batch Indian Police Service (IPS) officer, appear to be mounting, as the Allahabad High Court has issued a notice seeking his explanation over remarks deemed derogatory towards advocates.
Currently serving as the Chairman of the Uttar Pradesh Education Service Selection Commission (UPESSC) in Prayagraj, Prashant Kumar has been directed by the Court to file a personal affidavit in response to the allegations. The matter is scheduled for the next hearing on April 28, 2026, at 2:00 PM.
High Court Expresses Strong Displeasure
The order was passed by a Division Bench comprising Justice J.J. Munir and Justice Tarun Saxena, while hearing a petition filed by advocate Amit Kumar Singh, also known as Sonu.
The Court expressed strong displeasure over the language used in an official communication issued by Prashant Kumar during his tenure as Additional Director General of Police (ADG), Law and Order. The Bench termed the terminology used as “objectionable”, prompting it to seek a formal explanation.
Notice to Be Served Within 48 Hours
In its directive, the High Court instructed the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Lucknow, to ensure that the notice is served to Prashant Kumar within 48 hours through the Director General of Police (DGP), Uttar Pradesh.
The DGP has been entrusted with ensuring that the notice reaches the former DGP at his current residence. Additionally, the Registrar (Compliance) has been directed to communicate the Court’s order to the CJM, Lucknow, within the same timeframe.
What Triggered the Controversy?
The issue stems from a writ petition filed by advocate Amit Kumar Singh seeking the quashing of a ‘history sheet’ (criminal record file) opened against him at the Shivkuti Police Station in Prayagraj.
During the hearing, a letter was brought before the Court that allegedly contained derogatory remarks against advocates, attributed to the then ADG, Law and Order, Prashant Kumar.
Petitioner’s Stand
Petitioner-advocate Syed Umar Zamin informed the Court that the history sheet against Amit Kumar Singh—who is also the Vice President of the Allahabad High Court Bar Association—was unjustified and should be quashed.
He further argued that the language used in the official communication was inappropriate and disrespectful towards the legal fraternity.
Significantly, Syed Umar Zamin also stated that if the Court finds the response from Prashant Kumar unsatisfactory, it may proceed to initiate action against him.
Key Respondents in the Case
Apart from Prashant Kumar, the petition has named several senior officials as respondents, including:
- The Prayagraj Police Commissioner
- Amitabh Yash, ADG STF
- Other concerned authorities
Responses from these officials regarding the main petition have already been submitted before the High Court.
Court Signals Possible Action
The High Court’s stern observations and its insistence on a personal affidavit indicate the seriousness of the matter. The Court has made it clear that failure to provide a satisfactory explanation could lead to further legal action against the former DGP.
With the next hearing scheduled for April 28, all eyes will be on Prashant Kumar’s response and the Court’s subsequent course of action.
Conclusion
The case not only raises questions about the conduct of senior police officials but also highlights the judiciary’s firm stance on maintaining respect towards the legal profession. As proceedings continue, the outcome could have wider implications for administrative accountability and institutional decorum.
