The Allahabad High Court observed that a Judge ranks above the district magistrate, police chief, and political executive while discharging judicial duties. Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal made the remark after Uttar Pradesh Police failed to follow a Chief Judicial Magistrate’s CCTV production order.
PRAYAGRAJ: The Allahabad High Court recently stated that a judicial officer, while performing his judicial functions, holds a position superior to that of the district magistrate, district police chief, and even the political head of a State.
Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal made this observation while addressing a situation where the Uttar Pradesh Police failed to comply with a Chief Judicial Magistrate’s order to produce CCTV footage from a police station accused of illegally detaining a man.
The Court emphasized that a judicial officer, in the execution of his duties, ranks significantly higher than administrative and executive officers and can be equated with both the legislature and the political executive (ministers).
Drawing from the Supreme Court’s remarks in All India Judges Association Vs. Union of India, the Court asserted:
“It is clear that while a Judicial Officer (may be the Judicial Officer of Junior Division) is discharging his judicial function, he is above the District Magistrate or District Police Chief and even to the political head of a State. Anyone entering his Court has to give respect to the Chair of the concerned Judicial Magistrate, and disregarding the order of a Judicial Magistrate is not only contempt of Court but also challenges the authority of law, as they are discharging their duty to uphold the rule of law. District Judicial Officers are the first who grant relief to a common person. Therefore, they are the backbone of the judiciary, and disrespecting or disregarding the judicial orders passed by the judicial officers in the District Courts is absolutely unpardonable and deserves to be punished, being contempt of their Courts.”
Justice Deshwal made related remarks on January 30, revealing that police officers in Uttar Pradesh often exert pressure on judges, particularly Chief Judicial Magistrates (CJMs), to issue specific orders.
The Court had previously stated,
“Once a judicial officer is sitting on the dais, he may be a junior division officer, he is above all persons in front of him,”
The Court has since included these views in an official judicial order. It also identified that CCTV cameras in police stations are not being regularly monitored, despite directives from the Supreme Court.
Accordingly, it stated that CJMs or relevant magistrates may conduct random checks of police stations within their jurisdictions after court hours to assess the operation of CCTV cameras, with prior notice to their District Judge.
The Court ordered,
“During this inspection, all police officials shall cooperate with him and any hindrance or disrespect to any judicial officer will be dealt with strictly,”
In evaluating the case at hand, the Court found that the petitioner had been illegally detained by the police for three days, with his formal arrest recorded only after his sister lodged an application with the CJM. Consequently, the Court directed the State to compensate him Rs 1 lakh.
The Court declared,
“Therefore, this Court further directs the State Government to pay compensation of Rs.1 lac to the applicant in lieu of his illegal detention, and the State Government is at liberty to recover the same from the salary of the persons responsible for the illegal detention of the applicant,”
Considering that the Station House Officer and Investigating Officer in this case acknowledged their wrongdoing, the Court also held them guilty of contempt of court on February 19. However, showing leniency, the Court sentenced them to custody only until the court rose.
Furthermore, the Court instructed the State DGP to investigate the broader issues highlighted by this case and to address inappropriate conduct by police officers according to the law.
Advocate Vijit Saxena represented the petitioner, while Additional Advocate General Anoop Trivedi, along with Advocates Pankaj Saxena and DPS Chahuhan, represented the State.
Case Title: Sanu @ Rashid v State of UP
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES