Attempt To Influence & Intimidate Judge Over Call? Allahabad High Court Refers Senior IAS Officer's Conduct For Criminal Contempt
The Allahabad High Court has referred the conduct of senior IAS officer and Devi Patan Mandal Commissioner Durga Shakti Nagpal to the court dealing with criminal contempt matters after a Judicial Officer alleged that the Commissioner attempted to influence and intimidate her over a phone call in connection with a pending civil suit.
A Bench of Justice Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi observed that the tone and language of the alleged telephonic conversation gave a "direct impression that the Presiding Officer of the Court was tried to be influenced".
The Court further termed it as 'shocking' that a litigating party/state could approach a court through such a phone call in the context of a pending matter.
The observations were made in a transfer application concerning a 1997 Suit which had been pending before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gonda for nearly three decades.
Case in brief
The bench was dealing with an application seeking transfer of the 1997 suit from the concerned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gonda, to another competent court. The suit, pending since 1997, involved a dispute concerning government land. The issues were framed in 2018 and the matter is at the evidence stage.
During the hearing, the bench was apprised that Civil Judge (Senior Division) Shabina Khan, who is handling the suit, reported to the District Judge an alleged phone conversation with Commissioner Nagpal and requested that the case be transferred to another court.
However, before the High Court could decide the transfer plea, the District Judge, Gonda, had already withdrawn the suit from the concerned Civil Judge's court and transferred it to another court of equivalent jurisdiction, the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division)/F.T.C. Naveen/ACJM, Gonda.
The High Court therefore said that the transfer application had "lost its efficacy" since the relief sought had already been granted by the District Judge's transfer order, and the application was consigned to the record.
The Court, however, went ahead to examine the alleged conduct of the Commissioner. The High Court said it "cannot shut its eyes" to the allegations contained in the Judicial Officer's letter.
What did the Judicial Officer's letter allege?
Judicial Officer Khan wrote a letter to the District Judge, Gonda, on August 4, 2026, alleging that Commissioner Nagpal had called her on July 15, 2026, while the Judge was on leave.
According to the Judge's letter, the Commissioner allegedly asked when she would return from leave and whether she would extend it. The Judge stated that the Commissioner subsequently said:
"मैं सीनियर आई०ए०एस० ऑफिसर हूँ और आपने मेरा फोन न उठाकर बदतमीजी की है।" (I am a senior IAS officer, and you have misbehaved by not taking my phone call.)
The letter further alleged that the Commissioner said:
"अच्छा हुआ कि आपने मुझसे बात कर ली नहीं तो मैं आपकी शिकायत हाईकोर्ट करने वाली थी।" (It is good that you spoke to me, otherwise I was going to complain against you to the High Court.)
The Judge also stated 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 feel whether you are even a Judicial Officer.)
According to the Judge, the Commissioner also said that she would get the case transferred.
The Judge subsequently alleged before the District Judge that the Commissioner had attempted to use her position to “डराने” (intimidate) her, threatened to complain to the High Court and attempted to exert “अनुचित दबाव” (undue pressure).
Commissioner's Version
The State did not deny that the phone call had taken place. However, Commissioner Nagpal gave a different account of the purpose of the call.
She stated that she had taken charge of Devi Patan Mandal in April 2026 and subsequently learned that a dispute concerning government land had remained pending before the Gonda civil court for around 30 years.
According to her, the land was Nazul land reserved for construction of the Commissioner's office building. She said she directed concerned government officials and counsel to pursue the matter effectively and ascertain the next hearing date.
The Commissioner stated that after learning that the Presiding Officer was on extended leave, she called the Judge on July 15 only to ask how long she would remain on leave and whether she intended to extend it. She maintained that the pending case was not discussed during the phone call.
She further stated that she subsequently contacted the District Judge and requested that the case be disposed of expeditiously.
High Court's observations
Taking note of the letter of the concerned judicial officer and Commissioner Nagpal's version of the phone call, Justice Rizvi observed that the tone and language of the alleged conversation gave a "direct impression that the Presiding Officer of the Court was tried to be influenced".
The Court remarked thus:
"It is shocking that how a litigating party can approach the Court by making such a phone call and that too in context with a pending matter before the said Court".
The Bench stressed that the High Court is obligated to protect subordinate courts from being "insulted or pressurized" and that judicial officers must have "full freedom and independence" to decide cases and "act fearlessly".
It was further observed that any action tending to pressurize a court amounts to obstructing the process of justice.
Against this backdrop, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in In Re: Ajay Kumar Pandey 1996, the High Court noted that threatening to file a complaint against a Judge regarding judicial proceedings can amount to an attempt to interfere with the administration of justice.
The Bench consequently held that the matter prima facie required consideration by the court dealing with criminal contempt matters.
It directed that the matter be placed before the appropriate Court dealing with criminal contempt matters, after seeking directions from the Chief Justice/Senior Judge.
Case title - Jyoti Vidya Mandir Anandpuri Chhawni Sarkar Thru Manager Dayanand Mishra vs Nagar Palika Parishad Gonda through its Its President And others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 613
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 613