Disregarding judicial officer's order unpardonable: Allahabad HC

Prayagraj, Mar 2 (PTI) The Allahabad High Court has observed that a judicial officer, while discharging judicial functions, stands above the district magistrate, district police chief and even the political head of a state, and that disregarding such an officer's order is "unpardonable".

The court said such disregard is not merely contempt of court but a direct challenge to the authority of law.

In an order dated February 19, Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal came down heavily on police officials for allegedly ignoring directions of the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Lalitpur, and held the station house officer (SHO) and the investigating officer (IO) guilty of contempt.

The single judge sentenced them to remain in custody in the courtroom till the rising of the court at 4 pm.

The court was hearing a bail application filed by Sanu alias Rashid, who was implicated in a cheating case and allegedly taken into custody on September 14, 2025, without being formally arrested.

On September 16, his sister moved an application before the CJM, Lalitpur, alleging that her brother had been taken into custody but his arrest had not been shown. She also filed an anticipatory bail application the same day, which was dismissed on September 18 after the district government counsel (criminal) informed the court that the applicant had been arrested on September 17 morning.

Taking serious note of the matter, the CJM passed orders on September 22, September 30 and November 3, 2025, directing the SHO and IO to produce CCTV footage of the police station for the relevant dates of the alleged illegal detention.

However, the footage was not produced. The CJM also sought an explanation as to why a female co-accused, Rashida, was arrested at 4 am, despite legal provisions barring the arrest of a woman after sunset and before sunrise except under exceptional circumstances.

Despite warnings of contempt proceedings, the police officers neither submitted a report nor provided the CCTV footage.

When the matter came up before the high court on February 4, 2026, it summoned the concerned IO and SHO. They appeared on February 18 and tendered unconditional apologies, claiming that the CCTV storage capacity was limited to 10 terabytes and footage was automatically deleted after two months. They attributed the non-compliance to "inadvertence".

Rejecting the explanation, Justice Deshwal held that the officers had deliberately failed to comply with the CJM's orders and said "the court cannot shut its eyes to non-compliance of judicial directions".

The court observed that improper maintenance of CCTV cameras has become a "routine feature" in several police stations in Uttar Pradesh, adversely affecting the personal liberty of persons allegedly taken into illegal custody.

Stressing the role of the judiciary, the court said judges discharge sovereign state functions and cannot be equated with administrative or executive officers who merely implement decisions of the political executive.

"While a judicial officer is discharging his judicial function, he is above the district magistrate or district police chief and even the political head of a state," the high court remarked.

Exercising powers under Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the court found both the officers guilty of contempt for deliberate non-compliance with the CJM's orders. However, taking a lenient view on the quantum of punishment, it sentenced them to remain in custody in the courtroom till the court rose for the day.

The court also noted that the applicant had allegedly been detained illegally for three days without his family being informed, amounting to a violation of the Supreme Court's guidelines in the D K Basu case.

It directed the state government to pay Rs 1 lakh as compensation to the applicant, granting liberty to recover the amount from the salaries of the erring police personnel.

Further, the high court directed that chief judicial magistrates in all districts, or concerned magistrates, shall as part of their official duty conduct random checks of police stations within their jurisdiction after court hours to verify the functioning of CCTV cameras, with prior intimation to the district judge.

During such inspections, all police officials must cooperate, and any hindrance or disrespect towards a judicial officer will be dealt with strictly, the court said.

The applicant was ultimately granted bail after he undertook to transfer Rs 15 lakh to the finance company of the first informant within 15 days. PTI COR RAJ KIS RUK RUK