Allahabad HC flags SDM’s prolonged judicial inaction in maintenance case.

The Allahabad High Court has expressed serious concern over prolonged inaction by the Sub Divisional Magistrate (SDM), Sadar, Kanpur Nagar, in a maintenance case pending before him under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, after finding that the officer remained occupied with administrative duties for 21 consecutive days, during which no hearing could take place.

Court reiterated that entrusting judicial duties to administrative officers is “not a good idea”, observing that officers such as SDMs, when assigned judicial functions, must give priority to their judicial work over administrative assignments.

A division bench of Justices J.J. Munir and Indrajeet Shukla was hearing a writ petition filed by one Amar Singh Yadav. The petitioner was represented by advocate Nikhil Pandey, while the State was represented through the Chief Standing Counsel.

Why did the Allahabad HC object to the SDM’s administrative duties?

The bench examined a report submitted by the SDM, who also functions as the Presiding Officer of the Maintenance Tribunal constituted under the 2007 Act. According to the report, no hearing could be conducted between July 1 and July 21, 2026, because the officer was engaged in administrative work. The matter was eventually taken up on July 22, when the respondents filed their written statement, and the case was further processed through subsequent dates i.e. July 29, when the petitioner and one respondent filed replies while two others were given a final opportunity to respond, and August 19, when the petitioner was reported absent. The case was then listed for August 21 for the petitioner to file objections.

SDM prioritising administrative work over judicial work

Taking note of this timeline, court observed that a tribunal cannot allow judicial work to be sidelined on account of administrative commitments.

The bench underlined that where judicial functions are conferred on an administrative officer, as is the case with SDMs constituted into tribunals under the 2007 Act, such officers are obliged to dispose of their judicial work before taking up administrative duties, not the other way around.

Court stressed that judicial proceedings must follow a fixed schedule of sitting, and cannot be left to the convenience of the presiding officer, whether that officer is a trained judge or, as here, a lay administrative official.

It noted pointedly that the SDM had stayed away from judicial work for three full weeks solely because of administrative assignments.

The bench also reiterated a concern it said it had raised earlier that entrusting judicial duties, such as adjudication under welfare legislation for senior citizens, to administrative officers is not an ideal arrangement, though the court acknowledged this remains a matter of policy for the State government to decide through statute.

The alternative

Court suggested that such matters would be better handled by trained, professional judges with dedicated judicial schedules, free from competing administrative responsibilities.

In the present matter, court ordered that proceedings in the case must now go on with three effective hearing dates fixed every week, with necessary orders passed at each stage. Court adjourned the matter to September 15, 2026, and ordered that by then the SDM, in his capacity as Presiding Officer of the Maintenance Tribunal, shall submit a fresh status report on the proceedings.

Court further directed the Registrar (Compliance) to communicate the order within 24 hours to the Principal Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh, and to the SDM, Sadar, Kanpur Nagar, routing the communication through the Chief Judicial Magistrates of Lucknow and Kanpur Nagar respectively.

Case Title: Amar Singh Yadav v. State of U.P. and Others

Bench: Justices J.J. Munir and Indrajeet Shukla

Order Date: August 21, 2026

Tags: