High Court finds state order non-compliant, gives three-month deadline
Lucknow — The Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court on Monday quashed an Uttar Pradesh government order and directed that the family of the Hathras rape and murder victim be relocated to Ghaziabad or Noida within three months.
The division bench, comprising Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Jaspreet Singh, said the state dispensation had failed to give due consideration to the family’s specific request for relocation to Ghaziabad or Noida. The court observed that a December or February order from the government offering Kasganj, Etah or Aligarh for rehabilitation “did not even mention the family’s request” and therefore could not be treated as compliance with the High Court’s earlier directions.
“Therefore, it cannot be treated as a decision taken in compliance with the High Court’s directions,” the bench said, adding that there appeared to be unnecessary resistance on the part of the state.
Family cited safety and absence of relatives in offered districts
Advocate Mahmood Pracha, representing the victim’s family, told the court that Kasganj, Etah and Aligarh were geographically close to Hathras and could pose safety risks to the family if they were relocated there. He said the family had no relatives in those districts but had relatives in Ghaziabad and Noida, where relocation would enable them to “lead a normal life without fear,” according to the bench record.
- The court has given the state three months to carry out relocation to Ghaziabad or Noida.
- Once rehabilitation is completed, employment must be provided to one family member as per the High Court’s July 26, 2022 order.
- The additional chief secretary (Home) has been directed to file a compliance affidavit and to appear personally on November 30 if there is any non-compliance.
Court notes government’s approach and sets compliance mechanism
The bench said the manner in which the state responded to the family’s request gave “credence to the family’s contention that the government was treating the proceedings as adversarial litigation.” By quashing the February 22, 2025 order, the court made clear that administrative action that does not record or address specific directions issued by the judiciary will not be treated as compliance.
In addition to the three-month timeline for relocation, the bench reiterated its earlier direction from July 26, 2022 that employment must be provided to one member of the rehabilitated family. The court also directed the additional chief secretary (Home) to file a compliance affidavit setting out steps taken for relocation and rehabilitation. If the affidavit is not filed or the court finds the state has not complied, the additional chief secretary has been asked to appear personally before the bench on 30 November.
| Direction | Timeline / Date |
|---|---|
| Relocation to Ghaziabad or Noida | Within three months |
| Employment for one family member (per July 26, 2022 order) | After rehabilitation |
| Additional Chief Secretary (Home) personal appearance if non-compliant | 30 November |
The matter remains sensitive in Uttar Pradesh politics and administration. The 2020 Hathras incident and subsequent handling by state agencies attracted national attention and judicial intervention earlier, leading to the High Court’s ongoing oversight of remedies for the victim’s family.
For Ghaziabad, the order raises immediate administrative tasks: identifying a suitable relocation site within the city or coordinating with the Noida authorities, ensuring security arrangements for the family, and facilitating the employment commitment ordered by the court. Local law-and-order agencies and the district administration will be required to respond to the court’s timeline and file the mandated compliance affidavit.
The court’s direction underlines judicial insistence on substantive compliance rather than procedural responses. By setting a clear deadline and requiring an affidavit and possible personal appearance, the bench signalled that it will monitor follow-through closely.
No statement from the Uttar Pradesh government was placed on record in the court order made public on Monday. The additional chief secretary (Home) now has a statutory and judicial obligation to report progress in accordance with the bench’s directions.
