Justice Pramod Kumar Srivastava of the Allahabad High Court on Thursday recused himself from hearing a suo motu criminal contempt matter concerning senior IAS officer and Devi Patan Mandal Commissioner Durga Shakti Nagpal, who has been accused of attempting to influence and intimidate a judicial officer over a pending civil suit.
A Bench of Justice Abdul Moin and Justice Pramod Kumar Srivastava directed that the matter be placed before another Bench of which Justice Srivastava is not a member.
The Court ordered on September 3 to list the case before another Bench, excluding Justice Pramod Kumar Srivastava, on September 9, 2026, after securing a nomination from the Chief Justice or Senior Judge. The order did not record the reason for Justice Srivastava’s recusal.
The contempt proceedings stem from allegations made by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gonda, Shabina Khan, who alleged that Commissioner Nagpal attempted to influence and intimidate her in connection with a civil suit concerning government land that has been pending since 1997. On August 21, a single judge of the High Court referred the matter for consideration by the court dealing with criminal contempt after examining the allegations against Nagpal.
The dispute relates to government land and had been pending before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gonda, for nearly three decades. Issues in the suit were framed in 2018, and the matter had reached the evidence stage.
During the proceedings, the High Court was informed that Judge Khan had written to the District Judge, Gonda, reporting an alleged phone conversation with Nagpal and seeking the transfer of the case to another court.
Before the High Court could decide the transfer plea, however, the District Judge, Gonda, withdrew the matter from Judge Khan’s court and transferred it to another court of equivalent jurisdiction. The High Court, therefore, held that the transfer application had “lost its efficacy”.
However, the Court decided to examine the allegations against the Commissioner, observing that it could not “shut its eyes” to the contents of the judicial officer’s letter.
According to Judge Khan, Commissioner Nagpal called her on July 15, 2026, while she was on leave. The Judge alleged that Nagpal asked when she would return and whether she intended to extend her leave.
The judicial officer alleged that the Commissioner subsequently expressed displeasure over her not answering the phone and allegedly warned that she could complain to the High Court. Nagpal was also alleged to have questioned whether Khan’s conduct was befitting that of a judicial officer and stated that she would get the case transferred.
Judge Khan later alleged that the Commissioner had attempted to use her position to intimidate her, exert undue pressure and influence the handling of the pending case.
The State did not deny that the phone call took place, but Commissioner Nagpal offered a different account of the conversation.
Nagpal stated that after taking charge as Devi Patan Mandal Commissioner in April 2026, she learnt that a dispute involving government land had remained pending before the Gonda civil court for nearly 30 years. According to her, the land was Nazul land reserved for the construction of the Commissioner’s office building.
She said she had directed government officials and counsel to pursue the matter effectively and ascertain the next date of hearing. On learning that the Presiding Officer was on extended leave, she said she called the Judge only to enquire about the duration of the leave and whether it would be extended.
Nagpal maintained that the pending case itself was not discussed during the phone conversation. She further stated that she later contacted the District Judge and requested that the case be disposed of expeditiously.
The High Court noted that the tone and language of the alleged phone call created a clear impression of an attempt to influence the Presiding Officer. The Court expressed shock that a litigating party would make such a call regarding a pending matter.
The Court stressed that the High Court is duty-bound to protect subordinate courts from being “insulted or pressurized” and that judicial officers must enjoy complete freedom and independence to decide cases fearlessly.
It further observed that any act tending to pressure a court, amounts to interference with the administration of justice.
Referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in In Re: Ajay Kumar Pandey (1996), the High Court noted that threatening to file a complaint against a judge in relation to judicial proceedings may amount to an attempt to interfere with the administration of justice.
The matter was consequently found to prima facie warrant consideration by the court dealing with criminal contempt and was directed to be placed before the appropriate Bench after obtaining directions from the Chief Justice or the Senior Judge.
The case will now be listed before a Bench of which Justice Pramod Kumar Srivastava is not a member on September 9.
The post Allahabad High Court judge recuses from contempt case over IAS officer’s alleged attempt to influence judicial officer appeared first on India Legal.