Back
Refers Commissioner Durga Shakti Nagpal for Over Judge Phone Call
The has initiated proceedings for against senior IAS officer Durga Shakti Nagpal, the Commissioner of Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda, following allegations that she attempted to influence and intimidate a civil judge over a phone call concerning a .
Bench and Key Parties
The matter was heard by a Single Bench of Justice Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi. The was filed by Jyoti Vidya Mandir Anandpuri Chhawni Sarkar through its manager, seeking the transfer of a civil suit from the court of , to a court outside the Devi Patan Mandal division. The respondents included , the , and the Commissioner of Devi Patan Mandal.
Case Background and the Judge’s Letter
The suit, pending for nearly three decades, concerns a dispute over allegedly occupied by the petitioner. While hearing the transfer plea, the High Court was informed about a letter dated , written by Civil Judge (Senior Division) Shabina Khan to the District Judge, Gonda. In the letter, Judge Khan detailed a phone call she received on , from a woman claiming to be Commissioner Durga Shakti Nagpal.
According to the letter, the caller first spoke to the judge’s seven-year-old son, asking personal details. When the judge answered a subsequent call, the caller allegedly said, “I am Commissioner Devi Patan Mandal Durga Shakti Nagpal speaking. How long will you be on leave?” The judge stated she disconnected the call, finding it suspicious. In a later conversation, the caller allegedly threatened to complain to the High Court, questioned the judge’s upbringing and conduct, and said, “Your conduct made me feel whether you are even a Judicial Officer.” The judge felt “offended and pressurised” and requested the District Judge to transfer the case to another court.
The Commissioner’s Version
The state did not deny that the phone call occurred. Commissioner Nagpal submitted a separate letter to the Administrative Judge, Gonda, on the same date. She stated that she had taken charge in and learned about the 30-year-old pending case involving government land. She claimed she called the judge only to inquire about her leave duration and to request expeditious disposal of the suit. Nagpal denied discussing the merits of the case and said the judge became angry and used unparliamentary language in open court. She also reported the matter to the District Judge and the High Court administration.
Legal Analysis and Observations
While the District Judge had already transferred the suit to another court of equivalent jurisdiction, thereby rendering the , the High Court decided to examine the alleged conduct of the Commissioner.
Justice Rizvi observed that the tone and language of the telephonic conversation “gives a direct impression that the Presiding Officer of the Court was tried to be influenced.” The court termed it “shocking that how a can approach the Court by making such a phone call and that too in context with a pending matter before the said Court.”
The judge emphasised the High Court's duty to protect subordinate courts from being insulted or pressurised. “All the courts function for the noble cause of dispensing justice, as such, they have to have full freedom and independence in settling the litigation,” he noted. “Any action on the part of any person or litigant or lawyer which tends to pressurize the Court amounts to .”
Reliance on Supreme Court Precedent
The High Court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in In Re: Ajay Kumar Pandey (1996), which held that “any threat of filing a complaint against the Judge in respect of the judicial proceedings conducted by him in his own court is a positive attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice.” The apex court had warned that if litigants and counsel start threatening judges, “ would vanish eroding the very edifice on which the institution of justice stands.”
Key Observations
- “It is shocking that how a can approach the Court by making such a phone call and that too in context with a pending matter before the said Court.”
- “The tone and language of the aforesaid alleged telephonic conversation gives a direct impression that the Presiding Officer of the Court was tried to be influenced.”
- “This Court cannot shut its eyes after noticing the insulting language used against the Judge on the alleged phone calls.”
- “Any action on the part of any person or litigant or lawyer which tends to pressurize the Court amounts to .”
Final Order and Implications
The High Court dismissed the as having lost its efficacy since the suit had already been transferred. However, it granted liberty to the applicant to approach the District Judge for any further relief. More significantly, the court found merit in the contempt allegations and directed that the matter be placed before the appropriate court dealing with matters after seeking directions from the Chief Justice. The order sends a strong signal that any attempt to influence or intimidate judicial officers, especially by high-ranking government officials, will be dealt with sternly to preserve the independence of the judiciary.
