Allahabad High Court Refers Senior IAS Durga Shakti Nagpal For Criminal Contempt Over Phone Call To Gonda Civil Judge
Things just got surprisingly intense in the corridors of power in Uttar Pradesh. The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court has decided to step in forcefully, initiating criminal contempt considerations against senior Indian Administrative Service (IAS) officer Durga Shakti Nagpal. The 2010-batch officer, who is currently serving as the Divisional Commissioner of Devipatan Mandal right out of Gonda, finds herself right at the center of a massive judicial controversy. It all stems from allegations that she tried to push around a local judicial officer over a land dispute that has been dragging on for nearly three decades.
Justice Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi delivered a pretty sharp order after looking closely at the details surrounding an alleged phone call. The bureaucrat apparently called Civil Judge Shabina Khan directly on her mobile phone. The High Court pointed out that the overall tone and choice of words described by the presiding officer give a very clear initial impression. It looks like a classic attempt to meddle in judicial proceedings and shake up the core independence of the local bench.
The entire fight centers around an incredibly old civil lawsuit titled Jyoti Vidya Mandir Anandpuri Chhawni Sarkar vs Nagar Palika Parishad, Gonda. The case has been stuck in the court system since way back in 1997. At its core, the dispute is all about valuable Nazul land that was originally set aside for government offices and official state development projects. State officials say that a private school was built right on top of this government property without proper authorization. After almost thirty years of legal arguments and moving back and forth, the lawsuit finally reached the evidence gathering stage under Civil Judge Shabina Khan.
Feeling the heat, the school management actually went to the High Court first to ask for the case to be moved completely out of the Devipatan division. They claimed that local executive officers were abusing their authority and trying to bend the trial court to their will. But the drama hit a whole new level when Judge Shabina Khan sent a formal written report to the Gonda District Judge on August 4, 2026. In that letter, she detailed a super uncomfortable phone call from Divisional Commissioner Nagpal that happened back on July 15, 2026.
The judge explained in her complaint that she was actually away on approved leave when the Divisional Commissioner tried reaching her. When the judge called back, Nagpal allegedly started questioning her conduct right away and asked why she didn’t answer the first time. The letter says the senior bureaucrat bluntly remarked that it was a good thing the judge returned the call, because otherwise she was already putting together a formal complaint to submit straight to the High Court.
It didn’t stop there according to the judicial officer’s report. Nagpal allegedly questioned the judge’s basic manners and professional behavior while boasting about her own high rank in the administrative hierarchy. She reportedly warned the judge that she could easily get the case transferred elsewhere. Judge Khan stated very clearly that she felt deeply intimidated by the officer’s aggressive tone. She viewed the call as a straightforward attempt to leverage executive power, undermine her authority on the bench, and force a favorable outcome for the state.
Because of how uncomfortable the situation became, Judge Khan officially requested to recuse herself and asked for the matter to be transferred away from her court. The District Judge of Gonda acted quickly on her request and reassigned the lawsuit to another court of equal standing. Since the case had already been moved locally, the High Court noted that the school’s transfer petition didn’t really serve a practical purpose anymore. But Justice Rizvi made it crystal clear that the issue of an executive officer calling up a sitting judge could not just be swept under the carpet and forgotten.
Now, Divisional Commissioner Durga Shakti Nagpal didn’t deny that the phone call happened, but her side of the story is completely different. The state legal team told the High Court that Nagpal took over the division in April 2026 and was just trying to review long-pending disputes involving state properties.
She maintained that her intentions were purely routine and administrative. According to her account, she only reached out because she heard the presiding officer was on an extended leave. She claims she just wanted to ask how long the judge would be away and when regular court hearings would resume so government lawyers could present their evidence properly. Nagpal insists she never talked about the actual merits of the suit or tried to threaten anyone.
Even with those two contrasting versions, Justice Rizvi was openly troubled by the fact that a litigating executive officer would call a judge directly like that. The High Court emphasized that lower courts must be fully protected from executive arrogance, insults, and pressure tactics. Citing established Supreme Court judgments on protecting judicial independence, the court decided that the Commissioner’s conduct deserved serious formal examination under criminal contempt rules.
The High Court has ordered the registry to send the file directly to the Chief Justice or the senior-most judge to get proper directions for placing it before a dedicated criminal contempt bench. The judges did point out that these observations are preliminary for now, so there is no formal conviction or final finding of guilt against Nagpal yet. Even so, the order sends a massive message across the state administration about where executive power ends and judicial independence begins.
