Detailed legal analysis of the Sambhal police (UP) refusing to register FIRs pursuant to magistrate’s orders—constitutional duties, judicial supremacy & its impact on the rule of law in India
Introduction
Institutional controversy has escalated in the Sambhal district of Uttar Pradesh, where the local police have twice ignored magistrate orders to file FIRs. The recent report of police firing during a court-ordered survey of Shahi Jama Masjid has sparked serious debates over accountability, judicial supremacy, and the rule of law.
Institutional controversy has escalated in the Sambhal district of Uttar Pradesh, where local police have defied magistrate directives twice in as many days to register FIRs. The news of the police firing during a feeler survey at Shahi Jama Masjid has led to serious reflections on accountability, judicial supremacy, and the rule of law.
Legal experts have criticized the police’s conduct, saying that law enforcement agencies are constitutionally bound to follow court orders even if they intend to challenge them before higher courts.
Background: The Sambhal Mosque Survey Violence
The issue stems from a court-ordered survey of the Shahi Jama Masjid in Sambhal, directed during a dispute about the mosque’s historical status. During the survey on November 24, 2024, violence broke out nearby.
According to court complaints:
- Police allegedly fired at civilians
- Several people were injured
- At least five were killed
One victim’s family claimed their son was shot by police but avoided the hospital out of fear of retaliation. These allegations led to a judicial petition for registration of an FIR against police officials.
Magistrate’s Order to Register FIR
On January 21, 2026, Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) Vibhanshu Sudhir examined the complaint and ordered police to register an FIR against:
- Former Circle Officer Anuj Chaudhary
- Former Kotwali in-charge Anuj Tomar
- Other unidentified police personnel
The magistrate held that the complaint revealed cognizable offences that required investigation under criminal law. Citing well-established legal precedent, the court reaffirmed that registration of an FIR is mandatory when prima facie offences are shown.
Police Refusal and Justification
Despite the clear judicial order, senior police officials refused to register the FIR, calling the magistrate’s decision “illegal.”
Police argued that:
- A prior internal inquiry had already examined the incident
- Their actions during the violence were justified
- The order would be appealed before a higher court
However, the FIR was never filed before challenging the order, resulting in accusations of blatant defiance of judicial authority.
Second Instance of Defiance
This wasn’t an isolated case. In December 2025, Sambhal police again ignored a magistrate’s order to register an FIR in another matter involving an allegedly false robbery complaint—despite evidence that the accused was in jail at the time.
Such repeated defiance has raised alarm over a pattern of disregard for judicial authority.
Legal Standpoint: Are Police Bound to Register FIRs?
Indian law is crystal clear:
Key Legal Principles
- Under criminal procedure, police must register an FIR when directed by a magistrate
- Police cannot act as an appellate body over judicial orders
- If police believe an order is flawed, they must comply first and then challenge it legally
The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that failure to comply with judicial directives erodes constitutional governance.
Why Legal Experts Are Alarmed
Lawyers and jurists have called the Sambhal case
- A threat to judicial supremacy
- A violation of the separation of powers
- A dangerous precedent for institutional impunity
Experts warn that allowing police to pick and choose which court orders to follow undermines democracy and weakens public trust.
Impact on the Rule of Law
Institutional Consequences
- Weakening of magistrate authority
- Delayed or denied justice to victims
- Normalization of police self-regulation
Constitutional Implications
- Violation of Article 21 (Right to Life and Fair Procedure)
- Diminished judicial oversight over executive power
- Loss of faith in impartial law enforcement
Possible Legal Outcomes
Potential developments include:
- Contempt proceedings by higher courts
- FIR registration under court supervision
- Independent or court-monitored investigations
- Administrative action against the involved officers
Conclusion
The Sambhal police-court standoff isn’t just a local matter—it’s a test of judicial authority over law enforcement in India. The police’s refusal to register FIRs despite the magistrate’s orders challenges fundamental legal principles and risks normalizing government defiance.
In a democracy governed by law, obedience to judicial orders is not optional. How higher courts respond will define the future of police accountability and judicial independence in India.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs): Police–Court Clash in Sambhal, Uttar Pradesh
What is the Sambhal police–court clash about?
The clash concerns the refusal of Sambhal district police to register First Information Reports (FIRs) despite clear directions from a magistrate, including one case related to alleged police firing during a mosque survey.
Who ordered the registration of the FIRs?
The FIR registration was ordered by the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) of Sambhal, who found that the complaints disclosed cognizable offences requiring investigation.
Can police legally refuse to follow a magistrate’s order?
No. Police are legally bound to comply with judicial orders. If they believe an order is incorrect or illegal, they must first comply and then challenge it before a higher court.
What justification did the Sambhal police give for refusing the FIR?
Police officials claimed the magistrate’s order was “illegal” and stated that internal inquiries had already examined the incident. However, such reasoning does not legally permit non-compliance.
