Allahabad HC Refers Commissioner’s Calls To Judge For Contempt Scrutiny, Dismisses Transfer Plea

Lucknow: The Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, has dismissed as infructuous a transfer application seeking to move a three-decade-old civil suit out of Gonda, after finding that the District Judge had already transferred the case following a written complaint by the trial judge against alleged phone calls from a serving Divisional Commissioner, and has referred the contents of that complaint to the appropriate bench for consideration as criminal contempt.

Justice Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi was hearing a Transfer Application filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking to shift a permanent injunction suit pending since 1997 before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gonda, in which issues were framed in 2018 and evidence was underway out of the Devi Patan Mandal division altogether, to either the Faizabad or Lucknow division.

The applicant's counsel alleged that the opposite parties were misusing their office to pressurise the trial court, and placed before the Bench a letter dated 04.08.2026 written by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gonda, to the District Judge, describing two phone calls she received on 15.07.2026 from unknown numbers, one of which the caller claimed came on behalf of the Divisional Commissioner, Devi Patan Mandal, followed shortly after by a call from the Commissioner herself. According to the letter, the judicial officer felt that the caller was seeking to know how long she would remain on leave and was pressing her, in the context of a case pending in her court, to disclose the same.

Taking note of this letter, the Court had earlier called upon the State and the High Court Administration to explain what action had been taken. It was informed that the District Judge, Gonda, acting on the complaint, had already withdrawn the suit from the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gonda, and transferred it to the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division)/FTC Naveen/ACJM, Gonda, with the next date fixed for 24.08.2026.

The Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State, submitted that since the suit stood transferred to a court of equivalent jurisdiction, the transfer application had lost its efficacy and ought to be dismissed as infructuous. On being asked to address the allegations against the Divisional Commissioner, arrayed as opposite party no. 3, counsel for the State did not deny that the phone call had been made, but submitted that its purpose was only to ascertain how long the judicial officer would be on leave. The Court was also informed that the Commissioner had, on her part, reported the matter to the Administrative Judge, Gonda, alleging that the judicial officer had used discourteous language when she called to seek this information.

Recording that the suit had already been transferred by the District Judge and that no further indulgence on that score was warranted, the Court consigned the transfer application to record, while granting the applicant liberty to move the District Judge, Gonda, with any further grievance, to be decided strictly on its own merits.

The Court, however, held that it could not shut its eyes after noticing the insulting language used against the Judge on the alleged calls, observing that the tone and language of the conversation gave a direct impression that the Presiding Officer had been sought to be influenced. It emphasised that the High Court was under an obligation to protect subordinate courts from being pressurised, and that Presiding Officers must be free to conduct proceedings without fear.

Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in In Re: Ajay Kumar Pandey, the Bench reiterated that any threat of complaint against a judge over judicial proceedings conducted by them is a positive attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice, eroding the independence that Presiding Officers are entitled to under the Judicial Officers (Protection) Act and the Judges (Protection) Act.

Holding that the matter prima facie required indulgence by the court dealing with criminal contempt, the Bench directed that it be placed before the appropriate court after seeking directions from the Chief Justice or the Senior Judge.

Appearances:

For the Applicant: Shri A.M. Tripathi, Senior Advocate, assisted by Shri Anurag Tripathi and Shri Akhand Pratap Singh, Advocates.

For the State/Opposite Party No. 2: Shri Pritish Kumar, Additional Advocate General, assisted by Shri Shailendra Kumar Singh, Chief Standing Counsel.

For the Nagar Palika Parishad, Gonda/Opposite Party No. 1: Shri Anil K. Tripathi, Advocate.

For the High Court Administration: Shri Vijay Dixit, Advocate.

Case Title: Jyoti Vidya Mandir Anandpuri Chhawni Sarkar Thru Manager Dayanand Mishra vs. Nagar Palika Parishad Gonda Through Its President And Others, Transfer Application (Civil) No. 165 of 2026