Click the Play button to listen to article

Justice Pramod Kumar Srivastava of the Allahabad High Court on Thursday recused himself from hearing a suo motu criminal contempt matter concerning a senior IAS officer and Devi Patan Mandal Commissioner Durga Shakti Nagpal over allegations that she attempted to influence and intimidate a Judicial Officer.

A Bench of Justice Abdul Moin and Justice Pramod Kumar Srivastava directed that the matter be listed before another Bench of which Justice Srivastava is not a member. The order reads:

"List this case before some other Bench of which one of us (Hon'ble Pramod Kumar Srivastava, J.) is not a member, after obtaining nomination from Hon'ble the Chief Justice/Hon'ble the Senior Judge in the list of backlog fresh on 09.09.2026."

The September 3 order does not record the reason for Justice Srivastava's recusal.

On August 21, a single judge of the High Court referred the conduct of Nagpal after the Judicial Officer alleged that the Commissioner attempted to influence and intimidate her over a phone call in connection with a pending civil suit.

Case background

Commissioner Nagpal's alleged phone call was related to a 1997 suit concerning government land that had been pending before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gonda, for nearly three decades. The issues were framed in 2018 and the matter was at the evidence stage.

During the hearing, the High Court was apprised that Civil Judge (Senior Division) Shabina Khan, who was 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However, before the High Court could decide the transfer plea, the District Judge, Gonda, had already withdrawn the suit from the concerned Civil Judge's court and transferred it to another court of equivalent jurisdiction, the Court of Civil Judge (Senior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.

The Court, however, went ahead to examine the alleged conduct of the Commissioner, observing that it “cannot shut its eyes” to the allegations contained in the Judicial Officer's letter.

What did the Judicial Officer 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 by not answering my phone, you have behaved rudely with me.]

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 a good thing that you spoke to me; otherwise, I was going to file a complaint about you in 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।" [From your conduct, I actually wondered whether you are a Judicial Officer at all.]

According to the Judge, the Commissioner also said that she would get the case transferred.

The Judge later alleged before the District Judge that the Commissioner had tried 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 its purpose.

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.

While examining the allegations, the High Court 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 further remarked:

"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.

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 matter was consequently held to prima facie require consideration by the court dealing with criminal contempt matters and was directed to be placed before the appropriate Court after seeking directions from the Chief Justice/Senior Judge.

Tags: