SDM can't hear cases when he wants to; giving judicial duties to administrative officers not a good idea: Allahabad HC

The Allahabad High Court recently observed that entrustment of judicial duties to administrative officers, who preside over cases according to their convenience, was not a good idea [Amar Singh Yadav v. State of UP and Others].

A Bench of Justices JJ Munir and Indrajeet Shukla emphasised that judicial work requires discipline, particularly time schedules for court sittings. It cannot be haphazard and according to the convenience of the presiding officer, the Court added.

However, the Court also acknowledged that the question falls in the realm of policy-making of the State.

"We would again emphasize that matters such as these should be considered by the State to be entrusted to trained and professional Judges, who are not burdened with administrative duties and have a regular time schedule devoted entirely to judicial work," the Court remarked in an order passed on August 21.

The Court was hearing a petition alleging that a case filed under Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 was pending before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, District Kanpur Nagar, for a prolonged period without any orders.

In response, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM) said that hearing of the case could not be held between July 1 and July 21 as he was busy with administrative work. The Court was not impressed with the explanation.

It emphasised that if judicial functions are conferred upon administrative officers, they must dispose of their judicial work first before taking up any administrative duties.

The Court directed the SDM to decide the case expeditiously by hearing the matter 3 days each week. The officer has been directed to apprise the Court about the status of proceedings on September 15.

Advocate Nikhil Pandey represented the petitioner.

[Read Order]