Allahabad High Court takes serious note of IAS officer's alleged attempt to influence trial judge

The Allahabad High Court recently expressed concern over allegations that senior Indian Administrative Service (IAS) officer Durga Shakti Nagpal had attempted to pressure a trial judge through a phone call in connection with a long-pending land case [Jyoti Vidya Mandir v Nagar Palika Parishad & Ors.].

In a letter to the district judge, the civil judge alleged that the IAS officer attempted to exert pressure on her during a phone conversation by questioning her about her leave and seeking to discuss a pending case.

The IAS officer has maintained that she had not tried to discuss the merits of the case, and had only sought to know when the judge would resume hearing the matter.

On August 21, Justice Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi of the High Court took a serious view of the allegations against the IAS officer.

"The tone and language of the aforesaid alleged telephonic conversation given a direct impression that the Presiding Officer of the Court was tried to be influenced and that made her feel offended ...  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," observed the Court.

The Court was hearing an application to transfer the case to another trial court.

The case concerned a dispute over the possession of some land in Gonda. Local authorities insisted that the land was reserved for government use, and that a school was built over it despite this. The case has been pending since 1997.

The school, Jyoti Vidya Mandir, recently sought the transfer of the case to a court outside the Devi Patan Mandal division.

The school alleged that government officials were threatening its office-bearers and putting pressure on the trial court to conduct the case in a manner favourable to them.

While considering this transfer application, the High Court took note of a letter written by Civil Judge (Senior Division) Shabina Khan to the District Judge of Gonda on August 4, 2026.

In her letter, Judge Khan stated she and the Commissioner of Devi Patan Mandal, namely IAS officer Durga Shakti Nagpal, spoke over a phone call while she (Khan) was on leave.

The phone conversation took place on July 15, according to the letter, when Nagpal indicated that she wanted to discuss a pending case and questioned Khan on how long she intends to be on leave.

Khan said that she told Nagpal that she did not consider it appropriate to discuss a pending case over the phone and that the government's position could be presented through its lawyers in court.

She alleged that Nagpal then questioned her conduct, said she could complain to the High Court and told her that she would get the case transferred.

Judge Khan, therefore, requested that the District Judge transfer the case to another court.

Meanwhile, Nagpal also submitted a report on the incident to the Administrative Judge.

She admitted to having a phone conversation with Judge Khan but insisted that she had not tried to discuss the merits of the case. Nagpal said that she had enquired about Judge Khan's leave period, since the case was listed a few days later.

Nagpal further accused Khan of using intemperate language against her, during the phone call, as well as in open court. Nagpal claimed that after Khan resumed presiding over the court following her leave, the judge had openly questioned who the IAS officer was to ask about her leave and indicated that she would no longer hear the case.

In the meanwhile, the District Judge transferred the case to another court. In view of this, the High Court noted that it need not issue any further directions on the school's transfer application.

However, the Court said it could not overlook the allegations made against Nagpal in Judge Khan's August 4 letter.

"The contents of the said letter pricks the conscious of this Court," it said.

The Court noted that the State did not deny that Nagpal had made the phone call. The State's counsel submitted that the purpose of the call was only to find out how long the Judge would remain on leave and whether she intended to extend it. The pending case itself was not discussed, the State maintained. The Court nevertheless expressed strong concern over the alleged interaction.

It stressed that the High Court was under an obligation to protect subordinate courts from pressure.

"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," said the Court.

Referring to the Supreme Court's judgment in In Re: Ajay Kumar Pandey, the Court noted that threatening a judge with a complaint concerning judicial proceedings can also amount to criminal contempt of court.

It emphasised that judges must be able to discharge their functions independently and without pressure.

"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," observed the Court.

The Court concluded that it has to be examined whether Nagpal's conduct amounted to criminal contempt of court.

"This Court prima facie finds that the matter requires indulgence by the Court dealing with criminal contempt matters," it said.

Therefore, the Bench directed that the matter be placed before the appropriate court hearing contempt matters after obtaining directions from the Chief Justice or the Senior Judge.

Advocates Anurag Tripathi and Amrendra Singh represented the school.

Advocate Vijay Dixit appeared for the respondent-authorities.

[Read Order]