Back
takes serious note of IAS officer's alleged attempt to influence trial judge
The 's has directed that a matter involving senior IAS officer Durga Shakti Nagpal be placed before the appropriate bench dealing with , after a civil judge alleged that the officer attempted to exert pressure regarding a pending land dispute case.
Justice Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi, hearing a in Suit No. 721 of 1997, Jyoti Vidya Mandir vs. , took note of a letter written by , Shabina Khan, detailing a series of phone calls she received from the on .
The Phone Call That Triggered a
The civil judge's letter to the , dated , described how she received calls from a number later identified as belonging to the Commissioner's office. According to the letter, the caller questioned her about the duration of her leave and sought to discuss the merits of the pending case. When the judge expressed reluctance to discuss the matter over the phone, the caller allegedly threatened to complain to the High Court, using language the judge found "insulting and intimidating."
The judge wrote:
"The Commissioner misused her position to threaten and create undue pressure by threatening to complain to the High Court. She questioned my upbringing, which is not appropriate. I am deeply hurt."
In response, the , transferred the case from the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) to the court of , effectively granting the judge's request.
High Court's Intervention
When the filed by the school management came up for hearing, the state argued that the case had already been transferred, rendering the application infructuous. However, Justice Rizvi was not satisfied with merely dismissing the application.
The court noted 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 and that made her feel offended."
Despite being given an opportunity, the state did not deny that the commissioner made the phone call.
A Threat to
Citing the 's decision in In Re: Ajay Kumar Pandey (1996) 6 SCC 510, Justice Rizvi observed that any threat of filing a complaint against a judge in respect of judicial proceedings constitutes a that interferes with the .
The court held:
"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. The Presiding Officers, who run the Courts and conduct the proceedings therein have to act fearlessly. Any action on the part of any person or litigant or lawyer which tends to
amounts to
."
The Road Ahead
While dismissing the as having lost its efficacy, the court directed that the matter be placed before the appropriate bench dealing with , after seeking directions from the Chief Justice or the senior judge.
The controversy has drawn widespread attention, with activists demanding a high-level probe and the transfer of the IAS officer. Civil society members have also called for clear protocols regarding communications between executive officials and judicial officers over pending cases.
The underlying land dispute, involving Nazul land reserved for the construction of the Commissioner's office building, has been pending in civil court for nearly three decades. The High Court's decision now places the spotlight squarely on the alleged attempt to , reinforcing the principle that the independence of the judiciary must remain inviolate.
