The Allahabad High Court has taken strong exception to a violent disruption in Court No. 49 that occurred on October 28, recommending criminal contempt proceedings against a group of lawyers involved in the incident. A bench comprising Justice Ajay Bhanot and Justice Divesh Chandra Samant observed that the actions of these advocates scandalized the court, lowered its authority, and obstructed the judicial process. The court has requested the Registrar General to examine the filing of FIRs against the individuals involved in the vandalism and those accused of spreading false information regarding the event on social media platforms.
The controversy stems from a protest held by lawyers against alleged misconduct by Justice Ajay Bhanot. Prior to the ruckus, the Allahabad High Court Bar Association had written to the Chief Justice, objecting to seating arrangements for police and assisting officials within the courtroom. The association also alleged that Justice Bhanot had humiliated an advocate, forced an apology, and threatened him with jail time. The bench categorically dismissed these claims as “total falsehood,” clarifying that the seating arrangement was designed to assist court proceedings and that no order regarding the imprisonment of an advocate had been recorded or issued.
During the incident, the court noted that several state advocates, court staff, and a peon were allegedly assaulted. The bench cited a report from the Registrar General and supporting video evidence, which it stated clearly captured the acts of aggression. Criticizing the subsequent narrative surrounding the event, the court remarked that a “frenzy of social media falsehoods” had obscured the truth, noting that “truth has ceased to be relevant” in the discourse following the incident.
In its observations, the bench addressed the broader issue of the “criminalization of the Bar,” pointing to previous instances of organized misconduct within the legal profession, including a July 2026 incident at the Lucknow District Court. The judges expressed concern over law graduates who allegedly use their professional status to engage in property grabbing, intimidation, and interference with judicial proceedings. Describing these trends as a “fault line” threatening the foundations of the judicial system in Uttar Pradesh, the court emphasized that such behavior cannot be tolerated.
The court rejected the notion of overlooking the violence for the sake of maintaining harmony between the bar and the bench. Asserting that “anarchy is not a species of dissent,” the judges warned that the judiciary cannot be rendered vulnerable to blackmail through the appeasement of violent behavior. The bench underscored that its obligation to uphold the rule of law requires holding perpetrators accountable to ensure deterrence.
As the matter proceeds, the bench has referred the case to the Chief Justice to initiate the formal process of criminal contempt. The court reiterated that while the Bar has an obligation to hold power to account, this mandate does not grant a “license to incite violence” or the freedom to slander judges. The focus now shifts to the pending legal actions against those identified as responsible for the disruption and the ongoing efforts to address what the court identified as systemic issues within the legal fraternity.
Comments