Judicial officer outranks collector, police chief and State's political head when acting as judge: Allahabad High Court

A judicial officer, while discharging his judicial duties, is above the district magistrate or district police chief and even to the political head of a State, the Allahabad High Court observed recently [Sanu @ Rashid v State of UP].

Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal made the observation while dealing with a case in which Uttar Pradesh Police had disregarded a Chief Judicial Magistrate’s orders for the production of CCTV footage from a police station accused of illegally detaining a man. 

The Court observed that a judicial officer, while discharging his duty, is much above the administrative and executive officers, and his role can be equivalent to that of the legislature and political executive (ministers).

Considering the Supreme Court’s observation in the All India Judges Association Vs. Union of India that judges are not comparable with the administrative and executive officers, the Court held,

“It is clear that 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. Anyone entering his Court has to give respect to the Chair of the concerned Judicial Magistrate and disregarding the order of Judicial Magistrate is not only the contempt of Court, but also challenging the authority of law, as they are discharging their duty to uphold the rule of law. District Judicial Officers are the first who grant relief to a common person. Therefore, they are the backbone of the judiciary, and disrespecting or disregarding the judicial orders passed by the judicial officers in the District Courts is absolutely unpardonable and deserves to be punished, being contempt of their Courts."

Justice Deshwal made allied observations on January 30 while revealing that police officers in Uttar Pradesh are regularly pressurising judges, particularly chief judicial magistrates (CJMs), to pass specific orders.

“Once a judicial officer is sitting on the dais, he may be a junior division officer, he is above all persons in front of him,” the Court had orally observed at the time.

The Court has now reproduced these views in a judicial order.

The Court also noted that CCTV cameras installed at police stations are not being regularly checked despite the directions of the apex court.

It, thus, observed that CJMs of the districts or the concerned magistrates may randomly check the police stations, under their respective jurisdictions, after court hours to examine the working of CCTV cameras in police stations, with prior intimation to their District Judge.

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

Dealing with the case before it on merits, the Court found that the petitioner was illegally detained by the police for three days and his formal arrest was shown only after his sister filed an application before the CJM.

Therefore, the Court ordered the State to pay a compensation of ₹1 lakh to him.

“Therefore, this Court further directs the State Government to pay compensation of Rs.1 lac to the applicant in lieu of his illegal detention, and the State Government is at liberty to recover the same from the salary of the persons responsible for the illegal detention of the applicant,” the Court ordered.

Considering that the Station House officer and the Investigating Officer in the present case admitted to their fault, the Court also held them guilty of contempt of court on February 19. However, taking a lenient view, the Court sentenced them to custody only till the rising of court.

Nevertheless, the Court also directed the State DGP to look into the larger issues flagged in this matter and take appropriate action against erring police officers in accordance with law.

Advocate Vijit Saxena represented the petitioner.

Additional Advocate General Anoop Trivedi with Advocates Pankaj Saxena and DPS Chahuhan represented the State.

[Read Order]