Judicial Officer Discharging Judicial Functions Outranks District Magistrate, Police Chief And Political Head Of State: Allahabad High Court
Holding that a Judicial Officer, even of the rank of Junior Division, while discharging judicial functions, stands above the District Magistrate, District Police Chief and even the political head of the State, the High Court emphasised that disregard of orders passed by District Courts strikes at the very authority of law and amounts to contempt.
Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, Allahabad High Court
Reinforcing the constitutional position of the judiciary within the State’s institutional framework, the Allahabad High Court has held that when a Judicial Officer is discharging judicial functions, he or she is not comparable to administrative or executive authorities but occupies a position superior to the District Magistrate, Superintendent of Police and even the political executive.
The Court observed that any disobedience of judicial orders passed by District Courts is not merely administrative indiscipline but contempt of court and a direct challenge to the rule of law.
The Court was hearing a bail application arising out of allegations of financial fraud. However, during the course of proceedings, serious issues emerged concerning illegal detention of the applicant, non-compliance of repeated judicial directions by police officials, and failure to preserve CCTV footage in violation of binding Supreme Court directives.
A Bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, while holding two police officers guilty of contempt for deliberate non-compliance of orders passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in All India Judges Association v. Union of India (2024), observed: “while a Judicial Officer (may be the Judicial Officer of Junior Division) is discharging his judicial function, he is above to the District Magistrate or District Police Chief and even to 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 Judicial Magistrate is not only the contempt of Court, but also challenging the authority of law, as they are discharging their duty to uphold the rule of law.”
Background
The applicant alleged that he was taken into custody without a formal arrest and that his arrest was shown only after his sister moved the CJM, complaining of illegal detention. The CJM repeatedly directed the Station House Officer and Investigating Officer to produce CCTV footage of the police station for the relevant dates and to submit explanations regarding the alleged illegal custody and arrest of a co-accused woman.
Despite orders dated 22.09.2025, 30.09.2025 and 03.11.2025, neither CCTV footage was produced nor satisfactory explanations furnished. The CJM specifically invoked the Supreme Court’s ruling in Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh, which mandates installation and preservation of CCTV footage in police stations.
When the matter reached the High Court, the concerned officers appeared and stated that the footage had been deleted due to the limited storage capacity of two months. They tendered unconditional apologies but failed to provide any plausible explanation for non-compliance with judicial directions.
The Superintendent of Police admitted that had he been aware of the non-compliance, strict action would have been taken. The High Court found the explanations unsatisfactory.
Court’s Observations
The High Court held that the issue was not confined to bail but involved illegal detention, violation of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution, and disregard of judicial authority.
Relying on D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, the Court reiterated that personal liberty is a cherished constitutional right and that arrest procedures are not mere guidelines but statutory mandates incorporated into the Code of Criminal Procedure (now BNSS).
The Court also referred extensively to Paramvir Singh Saini, where the Supreme Court mandated installation of CCTV cameras in all police stations with preservation of footage for at least 18 months, and constitution of State and District Level Oversight Committees for monitoring compliance.
The High Court noted that in the present case, the District Level Oversight Committee had not held any meetings, CCTV footage was not preserved in accordance with Supreme Court directives, and even internal circulars reducing storage to two months were contrary to the law declared by the Supreme Court under Article 141.
Addressing the issue of non-compliance with the CJM’s orders, the Court relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in All India Judges Association v. Union of India. The Apex Court had observed that judges discharge sovereign state functions and are comparable to the political executive and legislature, not to administrative or secretarial staff.
Applying this principle, the High Court held that while discharging judicial functions, a Judicial Officer, even of Junior Division, stands above the District Magistrate, District Police Chief and political head of the State. The Court emphasised that anyone entering a courtroom must show respect to the Chair of the Judicial Magistrate, and disobedience of such orders amounts to contempt and undermines the authority of law.
The Court described District Judicial Officers as the backbone of the judiciary and the first point of relief for common citizens. Disregard of their orders, it held, is absolutely unpardonable.
Invoking Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the High Court held that it possesses the authority to punish for contempt of subordinate courts. Since the officers admitted deliberate non-compliance and tendered unconditional apologies without justification, the Court held them guilty of contempt of the CJM’s Court.
Taking a lenient view on sentence, the Court directed that both officers be taken into custody till the rising of the Court and released at 4:00 p.m. the same day, with a warning that future disobedience would invite stricter action.
The Court further directed the Director General of Police, U.P., to take appropriate action against erring officers.
In view of recurring violations, the Court directed that Chief Judicial Magistrates or concerned Magistrates may randomly inspect police stations after court hours, with prior intimation to the District Judge, to verify the functioning of CCTV cameras in compliance with Supreme Court directives. Such inspection, the Court clarified, would form part of their official duties. Any obstruction or disrespect shown during such inspections would be dealt with strictly.
The Court also highlighted that Human Rights Courts, already notified in Uttar Pradesh, are competent to entertain complaints regarding illegal detention or custodial violence and may summon CCTV footage for safe custody.
Conclusion
In fact, the Court held that the applicant’s detention was illegal. The arrest memo did not clearly reflect compliance with constitutional requirements, and information to family members was inadequately documented.
Accordingly, the Court directed the State Government to pay compensation of ₹1 lakh to the applicant for illegal detention, with liberty to recover the amount from responsible officers.
Considering the nature of allegations, overcrowding of jails, and Supreme Court guidance in Kapil Wadhawan v. CBI, the Court granted bail to the applicant subject to stringent conditions, including cooperation in trial, non-tampering with evidence, and transfer of ₹15 lakh to the finance company as undertaken.
The Court directed compliance through the Bail Order Management System to ensure early release and forwarded the order to the Director General of Police and all District Judges for necessary compliance.
Cause Title: Sanu @ Rashid v. State of Uttar Pradesh
Appearances
Applicant: Advocate Vijit Saxena
Respondents: Anoop Trivedi, Additional Advocate General, assisted by Pankaj Saxena and D.P.S. Chauhan, A.G.A.