Allahabad High Court recommends FIR, initiates contempt action against lawyers who vandalised courtroom

The Allahabad High Court has recommended the registration of a first information report (FIR) against lawyers who last week vandalised a courtroom over the alleged ill-treatment of a lawyer by Justice Ajay Bhanot.

A Bench of Justice Bhanot and Divesh Chandra Samant denied the allegations, stating that Allahabad High Court Bar Association had made "false imputations" regarding the incident and used provocative language in their recent communication to the Chief Justice.

The bench noted that a group of lawyers not only ransacked the courtroom and destroyed the furniture but also assaulted government counsel and court staff.

It also noted that a false narrative was spread on social media to bring the High Court and Justice Bhanot into disrepute.

While referring the matter to the Chief Justice, the Bench made following recommendations:

1. Registrar General may be directed to ensure that FIR is registered against the concerned lawyers for incitement to violence, conspiracy to commit violence, perpetration of violence and vandalism in court.

2. Registrar General may also be directed to register an FIR against the persons who put out false posts on social media pertaining to the aforesaid incidents in the High Court and to ensure that false posts on social media platforms pertaining to the incident are removed.

The Court said that criminal contempt proceedings are liable to be drawn against the concerned lawyers for prima facie criminal contempt. Accordingly, it referred the matter to the Chief Justice for transmitting the same to the appropriate bench for prosecution of criminal contempt proceedings against the concerned lawyers as per law.

The Court said that it cannot turn a blind eye to the incident in the name of harmony between the Bar and the Bench.

"Appeasement of violence in Court will make the Courts vulnerable to blackmail and not prevent recurrence of violence. Violence is not sated by appeasement. Violence can be curbed by bringing the perpetrators to justice and by establishing the deterrence of law."

The Court added that the obligation of the bar to speak the truth to power is not a license to incite violence against individuals and disaffection against the institution.

"Anarchy is not a species of dissent. Freedom of speech at the Bar is not the freedom to slander the Bench," the bench observed.

The issue stemmed from an incident in Justice Bhanot's court when he allegedly made a lawyer apologise to a Superintendent of Police (SP) for objecting to the officer sitting in a seat usually reserved for lawyers. The lawyer had asked the SP to move further back.

The bar association said that a separate chair was being placed in Justice Bhanot's courtroom for police officers and other high-ranking officials. The bar body alleged that the judge threatened to jail the lawyer and also ridiculed another senior counsel.

In a statement released on October 27, the association warned that its members would boycott Justice Bhanot's court if no action is taken. Though there was no formal call for boycotting the judge, lawyers on October 28 vandalised his courtroom.

However, the Court has now clarified the facts in an order passed on October 29. The counsel was not forced to apologise, as per the order.

"On the contrary he made a deliberate choice to express remorse, Expression of regret is not an act of humiliation, but a path to redemption. In the dialogic process of the Court recognition of error by the Bar and the Bench alike is not an admission of weakness but an assertion of strength. For it is only when we recognize errors, we can strengthen the process of law," the Court said.

The Court added that the bar association's claim regarding pointing of the finger towards the lawyer and passing the order to send him to jail was "a total falsehood and a deliberate one". No such order was dictated nor exists on the record, the bench said.

The order also records Senior Advocate VP Srivastava's statement stating that he was not humiliated by the judge. The bench appreciated the senior counsel for stating the truth.

"The courage of Shri V.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate to volunteer to speak the truth even in the midst of a hostile mob of some lawyers is a tribute to his character and testimony to the high traditions of the Bar." 

With regard to the chair, the Court said the intent of such seating arrangement is to facilitate proper assistance to the Court. 

"A chair is provided to the said official/person and the same is placed at an appropriate place/vantage point to enable the said official/person to follow the court proceedings closely, understand the nature of assistance required by the Court, and render the same effectively," the bench said.

The Court added that the seating arrangement was never objected to by any member or office bearers of the Bar over the years.

While recounting the violence witnessed by it last week, the Court said,

"The aggressive and unruly group of lawyers were looking to provoke an untoward incident in the Court. The menacing gestures and the deafening uproar raised by the lawyers made it difficult to believe that a constitutional court was facing learned members of the Bar and not confronting a riotous mob hell- bent on violence." 

It added that after the judges rose due to chaos, government counsel Paritosh Kumar Malviya came running into their chambers. He had a swollen face and was walking with great difficulty, as per the order.

"Thereafter Shri Paritosh Kumar Malviya narrated to us that immediately after we have risen a group of lawyers savagely assaulted him inside the Court room. He also informed us that the lawyers who were assaulting him had also threatened him for defending the State in matters listed before the Court and that he had to pay the price for the same," the order adds.

While commenting on the bar association response, the Court said,

"A live nexus between the false imputations and provocative language used in the aforesaid letter dated 27.10.2026 issued by Dr. C.P. Upadhyay, Senior Advocate, President elect and Shri Santosh Kumar Mishra, General Secretary elect of the Allahabad High Court Bar Association and the violence and disruption of proceedings which occurred in the Court today can be discerned."

It also said that social media platforms had "erupted with false news and disinformation" regarding the incident.

The Court remarked that a "propagandist scale of falsehoods" regarding judicial proceedings poses a serious threat to the credibility of the judicial process and majesty of the Courts.

"The reputations of judges who discharge their judicial functions are built over a lifetime in the profession, and falsehoods on social media can destroy them irreparably in a matter of seconds. There is no justice for judges who are prey to such social media propaganda," the bench said.

The Court added that the capacity of fake social media narratives to create disaffection against the constitutional organs of governance, paralyze functioning of constitutional institutions and create anarchical conditions cannot be underrated and that the same was in full play in the present case. 

It further said that criminalization of the bar is tearing at the very foundations of the judicial system in Uttar Pradesh.

"The younger members of the Bar in particular need to be guided with correct values and to develop professional competencies on the lines of excellence. The young members of the Bar have to be nurtured in the traditions of this Court, and schooled in the rites of the Chambers of seniors members of the Bar," the Court said.

[Read Order]