Allahabad HC Dismisses Writ Against ATS Inquiry, Holds Inquiry Is Not Coercive Action

A Division Bench dismissed a petition seeking to quash an Anti Terrorist Squad inquiry initiated by the Uttar Pradesh government, ruling that the mere conduct of an inquiry does not amount to a coercive action and the petitioners remain free to submit a reply before the Inquiry Committee.

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, on 1 July 2026, dismissed Writ-C No. 6347 of 2026 filed by the Committee of Management and another, who had challenged an order dated 9 December 2025 by which the State Government of Uttar Pradesh initiated an inquiry through the Anti Terrorist Squad (ATS). The Division Bench, comprising Justice Neeraj Tiwari and Justice Vivek Saran, declined to entertain the petition, finding that an inquiry in its present form does not constitute a coercive step against the petitioners. The petitioners were, however, granted liberty to participate in the proceedings by filing a reply before the Inquiry Committee.

The Petition Before the Court

The petitioners sought to quash the State Government's order dated 9 December 2025, which set in motion an ATS inquiry. Their primary grievance, placed before the court by Sri V.K. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Mohd. Ali Ausaf, was that two earlier inquiries had been conducted on substantially the same grounds and nothing adverse had come out of those proceedings.

Senior Counsel for the petitioners argued that the fresh inquiry amounted to harassment. On that basis, it was submitted that the inquiry was bad in law and liable to be set aside by the court at this stage.

State's Position on Scope of the Inquiry

Sri Manish Goel, learned Senior Counsel and Additional Advocate General, appearing for respondent nos. 1 to 3, presented a materially different picture of the inquiry's reach. He submitted that the ATS inquiry was not directed exclusively at the petitioners. It extended to approximately 4,000 institutions across the State of Uttar Pradesh, initiated on the basis of inputs received from different sources.

The Additional Advocate General pressed the court to dismiss the petition, emphasising two points: first, that an inquiry is not a coercive action; and second, that the petitioners retained full liberty to submit a reply in the inquiry proceedings.

The Bench's Reasoning

The Division Bench accepted the State's characterisation of the inquiry. The court recorded that it was “of the firm view that conduct of inquiry cannot said to be coercive action” against the petitioners. Because the inquiry had not yet resulted in any adverse order, and because the petitioners had a clear avenue to participate, the court found no ground to interfere at this stage.

The breadth of the inquiry — covering around 4,000 institutions and not singled out against the petitioners alone — further weighed against treating it as targeted harassment. The prior inquiries that concluded without adverse findings did not, in the court's view, bar the State from conducting a fresh inquiry based on new inputs.

The court made no finding on the merits of the inquiry itself. Its refusal was expressly confined to the current stage of proceedings, leaving the substantive questions open should any adverse order eventually follow.

Order

The writ petition was dismissed. The petitioners were granted liberty to submit their reply before the Inquiry Committee. The court directed that any such reply, if submitted, shall be considered by the Committee.