Law correspondent, Jagran, Prayagraj. Allahabad High Court has expressed deep displeasure over the failure of four district judges of the state, except Agra, Ayodhya, Bulandshahr, Farrukhabad, to submit the reports sought by them. Also, all the remaining district judges have been instructed to submit the report in compliance with the order of December 16, 2025 within a week.

What details had the High Court asked for?

The High Court had ordered that year-wise details of such police charge sheets filed from 2004 to 2024 be given in which the court has not yet framed the charge. Many district judges gave incomplete reports and some did not give any report at all. Some instead of giving the report themselves, sent the report to the in-charge. The court called it gross negligence. Also accepted contempt and said that it will be considered when the time comes.

The next hearing in the case will be on February 27.

Apart from four district judges and Amethi, all the district judges have been instructed to comply with the order. The next hearing in the case will be on February 27. This order has been given by the single bench of Justice Vinod Diwakar while hearing the petition of Urmila Mishra and others.

Gave advice to learn from Agra District Judge

The High Court said, out of 75 districts of the state, 49 district judges have sent the sought report. The court appreciated the report of Agra District Judge. Besides, the reports of other three district judges were also found to be correct. Gave advice to other district judges to learn from Agra District Judge. It also said that in some cases charges could not be framed deliberately even after decades had passed.

High Court made harsh remarks

Making a scathing comment, he said, prima facie looking at the report, it seems that the district judges did not understand the order or failed to provide the requested information. This conduct of the district judges is going to have a serious impact on the institution. The court said, the actions of the district judges will affect judicial discipline, sovereignty of the court and the basic rules of administration of justice.

A total of 26 district judges did not report.

The District Judge prepares a confidential report and recommends departmental disciplinary action. Incharges of some districts have reported, is this not negligence and contempt in performing the duty? A total of 26 district judges did not submit their reports. Apart from Bareilly and Gonda, no one asked for time. The behavior of the District Judges invites appropriate action in the interest of the institution.