Lucknow, Aug 23 The Allahabad High Court has deplored an alleged attempt to "influence" a civil judge in a land dispute by the Divisional Commissioner of Devi Patan, a litigant in a three-decade-old case, saying it struck at the independence of the judiciary and obstructed the administration of justice.
Citing a Supreme Court precedent on threats or pressure against judges in relation to judicial proceedings, the High Court's Lucknow bench held that the matter required consideration by the court dealing with criminal contempt cases.
Justice Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi directed that the matter be placed before the appropriate court after seeking directions from the Chief Justice or a senior judge.
The High Court said it could not ignore the allegations surrounding the phone call allegedly made by Divisional Commissioner Durga Shakti Nagpal to the Civil Judge, Shabina Khan, and said it was shocking that a litigating party could approach a court through such a call in the context of a pending matter.
Justice Rizvi passed the order on Friday in the course of hearing a transfer application filed by the applicant Jyoti Vidya Mandir School against the Municipal Council of Gonda in 1997 in a regular suit pending in the court of Judge Khan.
The dispute concerns several parcels of Nazul land recorded in the name of the Commissioner, Devi Patan division. According to the Divisional Commissioner's version placed before the bench, the land had been reserved for construction of an office building and other government purposes.
The state authorities alleged that a school building had been constructed on the land and that the dispute over it had remained pending before the civil court for nearly three decades.
The suit was pending at the evidence stage, and a status quo order was continuing. The applicant school sought the transfer of the case outside the Devi Patan division, alleging that authorities were misusing their positions and putting undue pressure on the court.
The controversy intensified after the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gonda, Shabina Khan, reported to the district judge an alleged telephonic conversation with Divisional Commissioner Durga Shakti Nagpal concerning her leave and, according to the judge, a pending case before her.
The judicial officer, subsequently on August 4, 2026, requested the district judge of Gonda that the matter be transferred from her court.
The district judge later transferred the suit to another court of equivalent jurisdiction in Gonda, making the transfer application filed by the applicant school before the High Court infructuous.
However, before closing the matter, the High Court said it could not ignore the allegations surrounding the phone call made by Divisional Commissioner Nagpal to the Civil Judge Khan.
The bench observed that the tone and language of the alleged conversation as reported by Judge Khan "gave a direct impression that she, as the presiding officer, Civil Judge, had been sought to be influenced".
The court noted that Nagpal had not denied making the phone call and said it was shocking that a litigating party could approach a court through such a call in the context of a pending matter.
Emphasising judicial independence, the court said subordinate courts must be protected from insult or pressure and that presiding officers must be free to discharge their duties fearlessly.
Any attempt by a person, litigant or lawyer to pressurise a court obstructs the process of justice, it said.
