Article 21 | Allahabad HC Directs Inquiry into Police Harassment Without FIR : Allahabad HC

The Allahabad High Court disposed of a writ petition filed by Abdul Mannan seeking protection from alleged police harassment despite the absence of an FIR. The Court directed the Commissioner of Police, Lucknow to ensure the petitioner's safety and initiate departmental action against erring officers, underscoring the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty under Article 21.

Background & Facts

The Genesis

The petitioner, Abdul Mannan, approached the High Court alleging persistent harassment by police authorities in Lucknow at the behest of private respondents. The petitioner claimed nocturnal visits, threats, and intimidation despite no FIR being registered against him.

Key Facts

• The petitioner alleged that Station House Officer (SHO), Police Station Dubagga, Lucknow, was acting under pressure from private respondents.
• The petitioner sought three reliefs: protection from harassment, a departmental inquiry against the SHO, and strict action on his complaint dated 15.07.2026.
• The petitioner relied on Annexure No.3 to substantiate his claims of harassment.

Procedural History

• 15.02.2026: Action under Sections 126/135 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 was taken against the petitioner for a reported breach of peace incident.
• 15.07.2026: Petitioner submitted an application (Annexure No.3) to the Commissioner of Police, Lucknow, against police officials.
• 23.07.2026: Present writ petition filed before the High Court.

Relief Sought

The petitioner sought:

1. A writ of Mandamus directing the Commissioner of Police to provide safety and security.
2. A direction to initiate departmental inquiry against the SHO and punish him accordingly.
3. Appropriate and strict action on the petitioner's application dated 15.07.2026.

The Legal Issue

The central question was whether the absence of an FIR precludes the High Court from intervening to protect a citizen from alleged police harassment under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Arguments Presented

For the Petitioner

Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner's right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 was being violated through persistent harassment and intimidation by police authorities, even in the absence of an FIR. The petitioner contended that such actions amounted to a violation of constitutional guarantees and sought judicial intervention to curb the misuse of police power.

For the Respondent

Learned A.G.A. submitted that the petitioner was not being harassed and that action under Sections 126/135 BNS, 2023 had been taken against him for a reported breach of peace incident on 15.02.2026. The State asserted that the petitioner was not being subjected to any unlawful harassment and that the police were acting within their legal mandate.

The Court's Analysis

The Court examined the petitioner's allegations in light of the constitutional guarantee under Article 21, which protects the right to life and personal liberty. The Court noted that while the State had taken action against the petitioner under the BNS, the petitioner's broader claim of harassment and intimidation required scrutiny.

The Court observed that the absence of an FIR did not ipso facto absolve the State from ensuring that police actions did not transgress constitutional boundaries. The Court emphasized that the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 encompasses the right to live without fear of arbitrary state action or harassment.

"The petitioner's right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India cannot be compromised merely because no FIR has been lodged against him."

The Court further held that allegations of harassment by police authorities, even in the absence of an FIR, warranted judicial intervention to ensure that the petitioner's constitutional rights were not violated. The Court directed the Commissioner of Police to take appropriate steps to protect the petitioner and initiate departmental action against erring officers.

The Verdict

The High Court disposed of the writ petition with the following directions:

• The Commissioner of Police, Lucknow, was directed to provide safety and security to the petitioner and ensure that he was not harassed or victimized.
• The Court directed the Commissioner of Police to initiate a departmental inquiry against the Station House Officer, Police Station Dubagga, Lucknow, and take appropriate action.
• The Court directed the Commissioner of Police to take strict action on the petitioner's application dated 15.07.2026.

What This Means For Similar Cases

Police Harassment Without FIR Is Actionable

• Courts will intervene under Article 21 to protect citizens from harassment by police authorities, even in the absence of an FIR.
• Allegations of harassment must be addressed through protective measures and departmental inquiries.

Departmental Accountability Is Non-Negotiable

• Police officers found guilty of harassment or misuse of power must face departmental action.
• Such inquiries serve as a deterrent against arbitrary state action.

Constitutional Safeguards Trump Procedural Gaps

• The absence of an FIR does not preclude judicial intervention to protect fundamental rights.
• Courts will scrutinize allegations of harassment to ensure that constitutional guarantees are upheld.