The Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench 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 Civil Judge alleged that the Commissioner attempted to influence and intimidate her over a phone call concerning a pending civil suit.
Justice Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi took serious note of the allegations made by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gonda, Shabina Khan, who had written to the District Judge alleging that Nagpal contacted her while she was on leave and subsequently spoke to her about the pending matter.
According to the judicial officer’s account, the Commissioner allegedly questioned her about her leave and told her that it was good that she had spoken to her, otherwise she would have complained against her before the High Court. The judicial officer further alleged that the Commissioner indicated that the case could be transferred. The High Court observed that the tone and language of the alleged conversation gave a direct impression that the Presiding Officer was being attempted to be influenced. The Court 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…This Court cannot shut its eyes after noticing the insulting language used against the Judge on the alleged phone calls. This Court being the High Court is under obligation to protect the lower courts from being insulted or pressurized. All the courts function for the noble cause of dispensing justice, as such, they have to have full freedom and independence in settling the litgation. 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 pressurize the Court amounts to obtrust the process of justice; have to be depreciated so that the proceedings may be held in an ordinary fashion and everyone who participates in those proceedings must have the liberty to present their case for proper adjucation.”
The Bench stressed that judicial officers must be able to discharge their functions independently and without pressure, observing that any attempt to pressurise a court obstructs the administration of justice.
The controversy arose in connection with a civil suit pending since 1997 before the Gonda court. The petitioner had sought transfer of the suit after alleging that the circumstances had created apprehension regarding the independence of the proceedings. By the time the High Court considered the transfer plea, the District Judge had already transferred the suit to another court. The High Court therefore held that the transfer application had “lost its efficacy”.
However, the Bench made it clear that the transfer having already taken place did not mean that the allegations concerning the telephone conversation could simply be ignored. The Court considered the alleged conduct serious enough to warrant examination in contempt proceedings.
The High Court ultimately directed that the matter be placed before the appropriate court dealing with contempt matters, after obtaining necessary directions from the Chief Justice or the Senior Judge.
