Allahabad High Court Scrutinizes IAS Officer’s Alleged Influence on Trial Judge

The Allahabad High Court recently addressed serious allegations against senior Indian Administrative Service (IAS) officer Durga Shakti Nagpal, who is accused of attempting to influence a trial judge involved in a longstanding land dispute case, Jyoti Vidya Mandir v Nagar Palika Parishad & Ors. The allegations surfaced after a civil judge reported that Nagpal had made a phone call while the judge was on leave, purportedly to exert pressure regarding the case.

In the contentious phone conversation, Nagpal allegedly questioned the judge about her leave and expressed a desire to discuss the pending case. The IAS officer, however, has refuted claims of attempting to discuss the case’s merits, asserting that her inquiry was solely about the judge’s return date to court proceedings.

Justice Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi of the Allahabad High Court expressed concern on August 21, highlighting the inappropriate nature of the alleged phone call. He remarked, “The tone and language of the alleged telephonic conversation gives a direct impression that the Presiding Officer of the Court was tried to be influenced and that made her feel offended.” The High Court was considering an application to transfer the case to another trial court, as the school, Jyoti Vidya Mandir, alleged that government officials were exerting undue influence on the trial court.

The case, which involves a dispute over land possession in Gonda, has been pending since 1997. Local authorities claim the land was designated for government use, while a school has been constructed over it. The school sought to have the case transferred outside the Devi Patan Mandal division, citing threats and pressure from government officials to sway the trial court’s decision.

The High Court’s considerations included a letter from Civil Judge (Senior Division) Shabina Khan to the District Judge of Gonda, dated August 4, 2026. Judge Khan detailed a phone conversation with IAS officer Nagpal on July 15, during which Nagpal allegedly questioned her leave and expressed intent to discuss the pending case. Khan responded that it was inappropriate to discuss the case over the phone and recommended that the government’s arguments be presented in court.

Judge Khan further claimed that Nagpal questioned her conduct and threatened to report her to the High Court, suggesting she would seek a case transfer. Consequently, Judge Khan requested the District Judge to transfer the case to a different court. Meanwhile, Nagpal submitted her own report to the Administrative Judge, acknowledging the phone call but denying any discussion of the case’s merits. She contended that her inquiry was limited to the judge’s leave period, as the case was scheduled shortly after.

Nagpal also accused Judge Khan of using inappropriate language during the phone call and in open court. Following these events, the District Judge transferred the case to another court, prompting the High Court to refrain from issuing further directions on the transfer application. However, the High Court underscored the significance of the allegations in Judge Khan’s letter, stating, “The contents of the said letter pricks the conscious of this Court.”

The court noted that the State did not deny Nagpal’s phone call, asserting it was merely to determine the judge’s leave duration without discussing the case itself. Nonetheless, the High Court expressed strong concern over the interaction, emphasizing its duty to protect subordinate courts from undue influence.

“This Court cannot shut its eyes after noticing the insulting language used against the Judge on the alleged phone calls,” remarked the Court. It also referenced the Supreme Court’s judgment in In Re: Ajay Kumar Pandey, highlighting that threatening a judge with a complaint concerning judicial proceedings could constitute criminal contempt of court. The Court emphasized that judges must operate independently, free from external pressures.

Consequently, the High Court determined that Nagpal’s actions warranted further examination to ascertain if they 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 concluded. The Bench directed that the matter be presented before the appropriate court handling contempt cases, following instructions from the Chief Justice or Senior Judge. Advocates Anurag Tripathi and Amrendra Singh represented the school, while Advocate Vijay Dixit appeared for the respondent authorities. [Read Order]