The Allahabad Excessive Courtroom has referred the conduct of senior IAS officer and Devi Patan Mandal Commissioner Durga Shakti Nagpal to the courtroom coping with legal contempt issues after a Judicial Officer alleged that the Commissioner tried to affect and intimidate her over a cellphone name in reference to a pending civil go well with.
A Bench of Justice Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi noticed that the tone and language of the alleged telephonic dialog gave a “direct impression that the Presiding Officer of the Courtroom was tried to be influenced“.
The Courtroom additional termed it as ‘stunning’ {that a} litigating celebration/state may strategy a courtroom by means of such a cellphone name within the context of a pending matter.
The observations have been made in a switch software regarding a 1997 Swimsuit which had been pending earlier than the Civil Choose (Senior Division), Gonda for practically three many years.
Case briefly
The bench was coping with an software looking for switch of the 1997 go well with from the involved Civil Choose (Senior Division), Gonda, to a different competent courtroom. The go well with, pending since 1997, concerned a dispute regarding authorities land. The problems have been framed in 2018 and the matter is on the proof stage.
In the course of the listening to, the bench was apprised that Civil Choose (Senior Division) Shabina Khan, who’s dealing with the go well with, reported to the District Choose an alleged cellphone dialog with Commissioner Nagpal and requested that the case be transferred to a different courtroom.
Nonetheless, earlier than the Excessive Courtroom may resolve the switch plea, the District Choose, Gonda, had already withdrawn the go well with from the involved Civil Choose’s courtroom and transferred it to a different courtroom of equal jurisdiction, the Courtroom of Civil Choose (Senior Division)/F.T.C. Naveen/ACJM, Gonda.
The Excessive Courtroom subsequently stated that the switch software had “misplaced its efficacy” because the reduction sought had already been granted by the District Choose’s switch order, and the appliance was consigned to the report.
The Courtroom, nonetheless, went forward to look at the alleged conduct of the Commissioner. The Excessive Courtroom stated it “can not shut its eyes” to the allegations contained within the Judicial Officer’s letter.
What did the Judicial Officer’s letter allege?
Judicial Officer Khan wrote a letter to the District Choose, Gonda, on August 4, 2026, alleging that Commissioner Nagpal had known as her on July 15, 2026, whereas the Choose was on go away.
Based on the Choose’s letter, the Commissioner allegedly requested when she would return from go away and whether or not she would prolong it. The Choose said that the Commissioner subsequently stated:
“मैं सीनियर आई०ए०एस० ऑफिसर हूँ और आपने मेरा फोन न उठाकर बदतमीजी की है।” (I’m a senior IAS officer, and you’ve got misbehaved by not taking my cellphone name.)
The letter additional alleged that the Commissioner stated:
“अच्छा हुआ कि आपने मुझसे बात कर ली नहीं तो मैं आपकी शिकायत हाईकोर्ट करने वाली थी।” (It’s good that you just spoke to me, in any other case I used to be going to complain in opposition to you to the Excessive Courtroom.)
The Choose additionally said that the Commissioner allegedly questioned her conduct, saying:
“मुझे तो आपने व्यवहार से ऐसा लगा कि आप Judicial Officer है भी या नहीं।” (Your conduct made me really feel whether or not you’re even a Judicial Officer.)
Based on the Choose, the Commissioner additionally stated that she would get the case transferred.
The Choose subsequently alleged earlier than the District Choose that the Commissioner had tried to make use of her place to “डराने” (intimidate) her, threatened to complain to the Excessive Courtroom and tried to exert “अनुचित दबाव” (undue strain).
Commissioner’s Model
The State didn’t deny that the cellphone name had taken place. Nonetheless, Commissioner Nagpal gave a special account of the aim of the decision.
She said that she had taken cost of Devi Patan Mandal in April 2026 and subsequently realized {that a} dispute regarding authorities land had remained pending earlier than the Gonda civil courtroom for round 30 years.
Based on her, the land was Nazul land reserved for building of the Commissioner’s workplace constructing. She stated she directed involved authorities officers and counsel to pursue the matter successfully and verify the subsequent listening to date.
The Commissioner said that after studying that the Presiding Officer was on prolonged go away, she known as the Choose on July 15 solely to ask how lengthy she would stay on go away and whether or not she meant to increase it. She maintained that the pending case was not mentioned through the cellphone name.
She additional said that she subsequently contacted the District Choose and requested that the case be disposed of expeditiously.
Excessive Courtroom’s observations
Being attentive to the letter of the involved judicial officer and Commissioner Nagpal’s model of the cellphone name, Justice Rizvi noticed that the tone and language of the alleged dialog gave a “direct impression that the Presiding Officer of the Courtroom was tried to be influenced”.
The Courtroom remarked thus:
“It’s stunning that how a litigating celebration can strategy the Courtroom by making such a cellphone name and that too in context with a pending matter earlier than the stated Courtroom“.
The Bench burdened that the Excessive Courtroom is obligated to guard subordinate courts from being “insulted or pressurized” and that judicial officers will need to have “full freedom and independence” to resolve circumstances and “act fearlessly”.
It was additional noticed that any motion tending to pressurize a courtroom quantities to obstructing the method of justice.
In opposition to this backdrop, counting on the Supreme Courtroom’s choice in In Re: Ajay Kumar Pandey 1996, the Excessive Courtroom famous that threatening to file a grievance in opposition to a Choose concerning judicial proceedings can quantity to an try and intervene with the administration of justice.
The Bench consequently held that the matter prima facie required consideration by the courtroom coping with legal contempt issues.
It directed that the matter be positioned earlier than the suitable Courtroom coping with legal contempt issues, after looking for instructions from the Chief Justice/Senior Choose.
Case title – Jyoti Vidya Mandir Anandpuri Chhawni Sarkar Via Supervisor Dayanand Mishra vs Nagar Palika Parishad Gonda by means of its Its President And others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 613
Case Quotation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 613
