“I Never Spoke Improperly”: IAS Durga Shakti Nagpal Responds After High Court Rap Over Alleged Call to Gonda Judge
Durga Shakti Nagpal isn’t a name that needs an introduction in Uttar Pradesh’s administrative circles, and this week she’s back in the news for reasons that have nothing to do with her usual divisional duties. The senior IAS officer, currently serving as Divisional Commissioner of Devipatan, has issued a formal clarification after the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court made some pretty pointed observations about her alleged attempt to influence a civil judge who’s been handling a land dispute that’s been dragging on for close to three decades.
Her statement came through the Information Department on Tuesday morning, and in it, Nagpal flatly denied putting any pressure on Civil Judge (Senior Division) Shabina Khan. According to her version of events, all she wanted was to make sure the government’s side was properly represented in a long pending dispute involving Nazul land, essentially government owned property. She was firm on one point in particular, that at no stage during her conversation with the judge did they discuss the merits of the case, the likely verdict, the case number, or even the specific name of the matter itself.
That clarification didn’t come out of nowhere though. It followed the High Court’s observation that her alleged conduct, at least on the face of it, amounted to something as serious as an attack on judicial independence, serious enough that the court felt it warranted consideration under criminal contempt proceedings. That’s not a small allegation to be facing, especially for someone holding a senior administrative post.
So What’s the Actual Land Dispute About?
To understand why any of this matters, it helps to know what case is actually at the centre of the storm. It’s the Jyoti Vidya Mandir vs Municipality matter, which has been sitting in the civil court at Gonda for nearly 30 years now, the kind of case that’s basically outlived multiple postings of officers and judges alike.
The dispute revolves around several parcels of Nazul land that, according to Nagpal’s own account, rightfully belong to the government. She explained that the lease over this land had actually been cancelled back in 1985, after which the property was officially recorded in the government’s name. However, she claims that despite that cancellation, a lease over the same land has allegedly been shown as active since 2008, and apparently this claim rests on nothing more than a simple piece of paper. To complicate things further, there’s a private school currently operating right there on the disputed property.
Given how old the case is, it had reportedly reached an advanced stage in the hearing process and was being pushed forward on a somewhat expedited basis simply because of how long it had already dragged on. Nagpal insists her only goal throughout was making sure the government’s land and its broader interests were properly represented as the case moved toward resolution.
Nagpal Says the Call Was Only About the Judge’s Leave
Coming to her actual defence, Nagpal’s clarification states that she reached out to the judge purely to find out when she’d be returning from leave, so that the long pending case could keep moving without unnecessary delays. She’s been pretty clear in denying that she discussed anything related to the actual merits of the litigation, or that she tried in any way to sway the judge’s eventual decision.
She also reiterated that there was no conversation touching on any specific verdict, case number, or the name of the case itself during their exchange. Nagpal went further, stating that she holds complete respect for the dignity and independence of the judiciary, and that whatever she did was driven purely by a concern for protecting government property, nothing more.
Interestingly, she also flagged what she says is an inconsistency in the judge’s own letter. According to Nagpal, the letter apparently referred to her service tenure as spanning 27 years, when in reality she’s been in service for roughly 16 years, a discrepancy she seems to be using to question the overall accuracy of the judge’s account.
How the Whole Controversy Actually Started
This entire episode traces back to a letter written by Civil Judge Shabina Khan to the District Judge on August 4. In it, she alleged that the Divisional Commissioner had misused her official position and attempted to put undue pressure on her regarding the pending case. Based on this alleged interaction, the judge requested that the case be transferred to a different court altogether.
That request was honoured, and the matter was subsequently moved to the court of Naveen, Senior Division Civil Judge at the Fast Track Court in Gonda. From there, things escalated further when the matter eventually reached the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court, which took the allegations seriously enough to weigh in directly.
Breaking Down What Happened on July 15
According to the detailed account Judge Shabina Khan laid out in her letter, the whole episode unfolded through a series of phone calls, all occurring on July 15, 2026. It’s a fairly detailed timeline, and worth walking through step by step.
The first call came in around 1:26 PM. An unknown number rang the judge’s phone, and at that moment, her seven year old son happened to be using the device to watch a video, so he ended up picking up the call. According to the judge’s account, the woman on the line asked where his mother was, and the child apparently replied that she was in the washroom. The caller then reportedly asked the boy his name, his age, and a few questions about his family. When the child, understandably curious, asked who was calling, the woman disconnected without ever identifying herself.
About an hour later, at 2:32 PM, the same number called again. This time the judge answered herself and asked who was calling. The woman introduced herself as Durga Shakti Nagpal, Commissioner of the Devipatan Division, and allegedly asked when the judge planned to return from her leave. When the judge questioned why the Commissioner was asking about her leave schedule specifically, Nagpal allegedly responded that she wanted to discuss a case currently pending before the court. At that point, the judge disconnected the call. In her written account, she explained her reasoning clearly, she didn’t believe it was appropriate for a Divisional Commissioner to directly discuss a pending matter with the judicial officer presiding over it, particularly given that government advocates had already been formally appointed to represent the state’s interests in that very case.
Not long after, around 3:21 PM, another call came in, this time from the judge’s own steno, Ashutosh. According to her letter, he informed her that the Commissioner’s steno had been trying to get information about her leave schedule and phone number, suggesting the office was actively trying to reach her through other channels too.
Then, at around 3:32 PM, another direct conversation reportedly took place between the Commissioner and the judge. According to the judge’s complaint, this exchange took a sharper turn, with the Commissioner allegedly questioning her manner of speaking and even bringing up the possibility of filing a complaint with the High Court. The judge further alleged that the conversation touched on her conduct and her upbringing, with the Commissioner reportedly invoking her own seniority as an IAS officer during the exchange.
That’s essentially where things stood before the matter escalated into a formal High Court matter, with Nagpal’s clarification now placed on record as her official response to the allegations that followed.
