Magistrate Discharging Judicial Duty Is Above DM, SP & Political Head; Disregarding His Orders 'Unpardonable': Allahabad High Court

The Court added that such disregard for the orders passed by a Judicial Officer is not merely contempt of court but a direct challenge to the authority of law.

A bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal also came down heavily on errant police officials for ignoring the orders of a Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) in Lalitpur. Thus, the single judge sentenced a Station House Officer (SHO) and an Investigating Officer (IO) to custody in the courtroom till the rising of the court

Briefly put, a bail application was filed by Sanu alias Rashid, who was implicated in a cheating case. He was allegedly taken into custody on September 14, 2025, without being formally arrested.

Thereafter, on September 16, his sister moved an application before the CJM, Lalitpur, claiming that the police had taken her brother into custody, but his arrest was not shown.

She also moved an anticipatory bail application on the same day. However, the same was dismissed on September 18, upon being informed by the DGC (Criminal) of the applicant's arrest in the morning of September 17.

However, taking a serious note of this, the CJM, Lalitpur, passed a series of stern orders [on September 22, September 30 and November 3, 2025] directing the concerned SHO and the IO to produce the CCTV footage of the police station for the dates of the alleged illegal detention. However, the footage was still not produced.

Furthermore, the CJM also demanded a strict explanation as to why a female co-accused, Rashida, was arrested at 4:00 AM, even though a lady cannot be arrested after sunset and before sunrise.

The CJM concerned also referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh in his order, wherein the top court had mandated the installation and preservation of CCTV footage in police stations to curb custodial torture.

The CJM also warned the police officers of contempt proceedings in his orders. However, despite these orders, the police officers neither submitted a report nor provided the CCTV footage.

Finally, when the matter came up before the HC on February 4, 2026, the High Court summoned the concerned IO and the SHO. Both appeared on February 18 and tendered unconditional apologies.

They further claimed that the CCTV storage capacity was only 10 terabytes, meaning footage was automatically deleted after two months. They also admitted that their failure to comply with the CJM's orders was due to 'inadvertence'.

Justice Deshwal, however, refused to accept this explanation and noted that the SHO and IO had deliberately not complied with the CJM's orders. The single judge added that the Court can't shut its eyes to the non-compliance of the judicial orders.

It remarked thus:

"…here the question is not only the violation of personal liberty of a person enshrined in Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India, but also disregard to the order of the judicial authorities, which has effect of demeaning the authority of law".

Notably, the Court also stated in its order that not properly maintaining the CCTV cameras has become a “routine feature” in several police stations of UP, which is seriously affecting the personal liberty of persons who are illegally taken into custody by the police.

Furthermore, referring to the Supreme Court's judgment in All India Judges Association v. Union of India, the High Court stressed that Judges are not comparable with the administrative and executive officers as they discharge sovereign state functions and cannot be equated with secretarial staff or administrative executives who merely carry out the political executive's decisions.

"While a Judicial Officer (may be the Judicial Officer of Junior Division) is discharging his judicial function, he is above to the District Magistrate or District Police Chief and even to political head of a State," the High Court remarked.

It added that anyone entering a courtroom must respect the Chair of the Judicial Magistrate, and since the district judicial officers are the first line of defence for a common person seeking relief, they form the backbone of the judiciary.

Therefore, exercising its powers under Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the High Court found both the IO and the SHO guilty of contempt for their deliberate non-compliance with the CJM's orders.

However, taking a lenient view of the quantum of punishment, the Court sentenced them to remain in custody in the courtroom until the Court rose at 4:00 PM.

In its order, the bench also noted that, since the applicant was illegally detained for three days without his family being informed, this constituted a direct violation of the Supreme Court's guidelines in the DK Basu case.

Therefore, it directed the State Government to pay the applicant Rs. 1 lakh as compensation. The State was, however, granted the liberty to recover this amount from the salaries of the responsible police personnel.

Importantly, the High Court also directed that the CJMs of all districts, or the concerned Magistrates, as part of their official duty, will randomly check the police stations within their respective jurisdictions after court hours regarding the functioning of CCTV cameras in police stations, with prior intimation to their District Judge.

The bench further provided that if the CJM or the Judicial Magistrate inspects the concerned police station to check the CCTV camera to verify whether the directions of the Apex Court in the case of Paramvir Singh Saini (supra) have been complied with, that would be considered as part of his/her official duty.

During this inspection, the Court added, all the police officials shall cooperate with him, and any hindrance or disrespect to any judicial officer will be dealt with strictly.

The Court clarified that the inspection by a Judicial Magistrate or CJM, of police stations, for checking the working of CCTV cameras, is in compliance with the order of the Apex Court in Paramvir Singh Saini (supra), as part of their official duty.

Notably, the Court also clarified that the Human Rights Court at every district can entertain a complaint regarding a violation of Human Rights, which also includes illegal detention by police or custodial violence in a police station and proceed in accordance with the law.

The applicant was ultimately granted bail by the High Court upon his undertaking to transfer Rs. 15 lakhs to the finance company of the first informant within 15 days.

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 99