Lucknow, August 2025 — One of Uttar Pradesh’s most talked-about and controversial police officers, Anuj Chaudhary, is once again in the spotlight. This time, it’s not for his polarizing statements, but for his upcoming promotion to the rank of Additional Superintendent of Police (ASP). A 2012 batch PPS officer and Arjuna Award-winning wrestler, Chaudhary’s name is among 19 officers whose promotion proposals have been sent to Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath for final approval.
⚖️ Promotion Amid Pending Investigations
What makes this development contentious is that serious human rights violation complaints against Chaudhary are still pending before the State Human Rights Commission. Advocate Dr. Gajendra Singh Yadav from the Allahabad High Court has filed two major complaints:
- Four suspicious deaths during communal violence in Sambhal, allegedly involving police misconduct.
- Chaudhary’s public participation in religious rituals while in uniform, raising concerns about impartiality and secular conduct expected from a government officer.
Despite these unresolved issues, the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) has already cleared his name, and the process now awaits the CM’s nod.
🗣️ Past Controversies and Political Endorsement
Chaudhary has been no stranger to controversy. During the Sambhal incident, he made a public statement:
“Holi comes once a year, Friday comes 52 times. Those who avoid colors should stay indoors.”
The remark drew criticism for being insensitive and communal, though CM Yogi Adityanath defended him, saying, “He’s a wrestler, and he speaks like one.”
🏅 Sports Quota and Career Path
Anuj Chaudhary was recruited under the sports quota and received the Arjuna Award in 2005 for wrestling. His seniority was revised based on this achievement, paving the way for his promotion.
❓ Ethics vs Administration
Promoting an officer under active investigation for serious allegations raises ethical concerns. It not only undermines the credibility of the police force, but also risks alienating victims still seeking justice. Critics argue that such decisions reflect poorly on the government’s commitment to transparency and accountability.