The Allahabad High Court has raised concerns about administrative officers handling judicial duties at their convenience. In the case Amar Singh Yadav v. State of UP and Others, a bench of Justices JJ Munir and Indrajeet Shukla examined the practice of assigning judicial responsibilities to officials who manage cases according to their own schedules. The court emphasized that such arrangements undermine the integrity of the judicial process and violate principles of timely justice delivery.
The bench criticized the entrustment of judicial duties to administrative officers, noting that such arrangements often lead to delays. The issue arose from a petition involving a case under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, which had been pending with the Sub-Divisional Officer in Kanpur Nagar for an extended period without final orders.
The Sub-Divisional Magistrate attributed the delay to administrative duties that prevented hearings over a three-week period in July. The bench dismissed this explanation, emphasizing that judicial work requires strict adherence to a fixed schedule. Court proceedings must follow established timelines, and the presiding officer cannot prioritize administrative tasks over judicial commitments. The court further noted that such delays not only harm petitioners but also erode public confidence in the legal system’s efficiency.
The court directed the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to resolve the pending case by conducting hearings three days a week and to report progress to the High Court by September 15. Advocate Nikhil Pandey represented the petitioner in the matter. The directive shows the court’s commitment to ensuring that legal rights are not delayed due to procedural inefficiencies or role conflicts among officials. Such orders aim to balance administrative responsibilities with the imperative of timely justice.
