UP IAS Durga Shakti Nagpal at centre of new row, this time over ‘attempt to influence, intimidate’ judge

Nagpal is currently Divisional Commissioner of Devi Patan, and has come under scrutiny of Allahabad HC after a civil judge alleged she contacted her over phone regarding a pending case.

File photo: IAS officer Durga Shakti Nagpal | X

Lucknow: Indian Administrative Service (IAS) officer Durga Shakti Nagpal is caught amid yet another controversy, this time over allegations that she attempted to influence and intimidate a judicial officer in connection with a pending civil dispute.

An officer of 2010 batch, Nagpal is currently the Divisional Commissioner of Devi Patan. She has come under the scrutiny of the Allahabad High Court’s Lucknow Bench after Gonda Civil Judge (Senior Division) Shabina Khan alleged that the senior Uttar Pradesh cadre officer contacted her over phone regarding a case pending before her court.

The high court has observed that, prima facie, the alleged conversation appeared to be an attempt to influence the judicial officer, and has referred Nagpal’s conduct to the court dealing with criminal contempt matters.

Justice Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi made the observations while hearing a petition related to the transfer of a civil suit that has been pending since 1997 between Jyoti Vidya Mandir School and the Nagar Palika Parishad, Gonda.

The dispute concerns several parcels of Nazul land recorded in the name of the Commissioner of Devi Patan division. Nazul land is owned by the state, and usually managed as leasehold property.

According to the commissioner’s stand before the court, the land had been reserved for an office building and other government purposes. It was alleged that a school building was subsequently constructed on the land, leading to a dispute that has remained pending before the civil court for over two decades.

The case is currently at the evidence stage, and a status quo order is also in force. The school had alleged that state officials were misusing their positions to exert undue pressure on the court and had sought the transfer of the case outside the Devi Patan division.

The allegation

The controversy intensified after Civil Judge Shabina Khan informed the court about an alleged telephone conversation with Nagpal on 15 July.

In her written statement that went viral on social media, Khan alleged that Durga said, “I am a senior IAS officer, and you have behaved improperly by not taking my phone call.” She added, “It is good that you spoke to me; otherwise, I was going to file a complaint against you in the high court.’

Justice Rizvi observed that the tone and language of the alleged conversation gave a direct impression that an attempt was made to influence the presiding officer of the court. The high court also noted that Nagpal had not denied making the phone call. It expressed surprise that a litigating party or the state could approach a court through a phone call in connection with a matter that was still pending.

The court said the alleged conduct, prima facie, amounted to a direct attack on the independence of the judiciary and an interference with the administration of justice. Referring to Supreme Court rulings that have treated threats or attempts to pressure judges in judicial matters seriously, the high court said the matter required consideration under criminal contempt.

It directed that, after obtaining necessary instructions from the chief justice or the senior judge concerned, the matter be placed before the appropriate court dealing with criminal contempt cases.

ThePrint has approached Nagpal for her version. This report will be updated if and when a response is received.

Previous controversies

This is not the first time Nagpal is at the centre of a major controversy.

In 2013, when she was posted as Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM) in Uttar Pradesh’s Gautam Buddh Nagar district, Nagpal launched a crackdown against alleged illegal sand mining along the Yamuna and Hindon rivers.

Nagpal’s action against illegal mining operations, including raids and action against those allegedly involved, spawned a major controversy when she was suspended by the then Akhilesh Yadav government in July 2013 after the demolition of a wall of an under-construction mosque in Kadalpur village. The state government had alleged that her action threatened law and order by involving a religious structure.

Nagpal, however, did not accept the allegations against her. The suspension triggered a debate over whether civil servants could be suspended under political pressure for carrying out their duties. The controversy grew beyond Uttar Pradesh, with widespread criticism of the state government’s decision. The Centre had sought a report from the Uttar Pradesh government.

Nagpal continued her legal challenge and maintained her stand. Facing mounting criticism and scrutiny, the Akhilesh Yadav government eventually revoked her suspension in October 2013.

She also made headlines in 2025 after the Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI) in New Delhi issued her a notice demanding Rs.1.63 crore in damages. The IARI alleged that Nagpal had remained in “unauthorised occupation” of a Type VI-A government bungalow, B-17, at the Pusa campus in Delhi from May 2022 to February 2025.

Nagpal said she had sought an extension to retain the bungalow because of her parents’ ill health, adding she had paid rent and eventually vacated the bungalow in February. Despite this, a huge penalty has been imposed on her due to certain procedural formalities, which is impractical.

Nagpal was allotted the bungalow in March 2015 when she was appointed Officer on Special Duty (OSD) to then Agriculture Minister, Radha Mohan Singh. She moved into the bungalow in April 2015 and continued to pay a monthly rent.

However, her deputation to the Agriculture Ministry ended in May 2019. She continued to occupy the bungalow even after moving to the Commerce Ministry and later returning to her Uttar Pradesh cadre in 2021. The IARI repeatedly issued notices asking her to vacate the bungalow, but she left only in February 2025, after the institute sought assistance from the Delhi Police.

(Edited by Nardeep Singh Dahiya)