Hooliganism: Supreme Court on UP lawyers who ransacked advocate's office for representing toll plaza employees

The Supreme Court on Tuesday condemned an incident where hundreds of lawyers from Uttar Pradesh's Barabanki reportedly stormed into a fellow lawyer's office and set his furniture on fire for defying a resolution against representing toll plaza employees accused of attacking an advocate [Vishvjeet and others v. State Of Uttar Pradesh and ors].

A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta lamented that members of the District Bar Association at Barabanki turned into perpetrators of violence. It said that the incident reflected a sorry state of affairs with respect to the conduct of law professionals, particularly in Uttar Pradesh.

The Court also granted bail to the accused toll plaza employees in the assault case registered against them.

The Bench added that the Director General of Police in Uttar Pradesh must ensure the safety and security of the accused employees once they are released on bail and escort them to a safe location.

Further, the Court also transferred further criminal proceedings in the matter to Delhi.

"In order to ensure that the accused get proper legal representation and a fair trial, we direct that the proceedings arising out of the FIR No.15/2026 shall stand transferred to the Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi, for all further actions, i.e., remand, filing of result of investigation, and trial. Upon the case file being received in the jurisdictional Court at Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi, the trial Court may set appropriate additional conditions for bail," it ordered.

The matter is tied to a January 14 spat between an advocate named Ratnesh Shukla and toll plaza employees who were posted on the Lucknow-Sultanpur highway.

The toll employees claim that a verbal altercation arose after the lawyer refused to pay the requisite toll charges while passing through.

The argument reportedly escalated into a physical scuffle, where the toll plaza employees chased and surrounded the lawyer, before allegedly beating him up and demanding that he apologise.

A criminal case was registered the same day against the toll plaza employees. They were arrested soon after. They claimed that this was done in violation of procedural safeguards, without furnishing any grounds for arrest. They were remanded to judicial custody on January 16.

Meanwhile, immediately after the first information report (FIR) was registered in this assault case, local lawyers are reported to have started violent protests. The Court, in its March 17 order, took critical note that such volatile reactions have become a "usual feature these days."

"What is most unfortunate is that even the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh joined the fray and addressed a letter to the Hon’ble Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh requesting invocation of the provisions of National Security Act against the petitioners (toll plaza employees who allegedly attacked the advocate) even though the incident pertained to a trivial scuffle."

A resolution was also passed and circulated among local lawyers that no advocate would represent the accused toll plaza employees. However, a lawyer named Manoj Shukla defied this resolution and filed a bail application on behalf of the toll plaza employees. The Court noted that Shukla showed "considerable courage" to file this bail application on February 5.

However, this prompted a sharp reaction from other lawyers, who reportedly barged into Shukla's office, set his furniture on fire and also burnt his effigy. The Court relied on local newspaper reports of the incident.

These developments prompted the toll plaza employees to file a plea before the Supreme Court for bail and for the transfer of the case out of Uttar Pradesh.

They argued that the rampant violence by local lawyers has discouraged other lawyers from taking up their case. No advocate in Barabanki, or even from other nearby places, is willing to represent the petitioners, the Court was told. As a result, their right to legal remedies was curtailed in Uttar Pradesh, the petitioners argued while seeking the transfer of the case to Delhi.

The Court criticised this turn of events, particularly the "hooliganism" displayed by lawyers in Barabanki.

"We condemn the role of the members of the bar at Barabanki, who indulged into hooliganism by damaging the furniture etc. of the advocate, who had filed the bail application on behalf of the petitioners."

It added that it expected the Bar Council of India (BCI) to take appropriate steps to tackle such incidents.

"The facts noted hereinabove reveal a very sorry state of affairs. The legal profession, which was once regarded as a noble profession, has clearly been tainted and tarnished by the acts of hooliganism perpetrated pursuant to the fracas which took place at the toll plaza on 14th January, 2026. We can understand the sentiment of fraternity amongst the lawyers but that, by no means, can justify the acts of violence and lawlessness which ensued when a brave lawyer came forward to defend the accused. These deplorable acts of hooliganism deserve to be deprecated. The disciplinary body, i.e., the Bar Council of India is expected to take appropriate steps in this regard," it said.

Advocate Rohit K Singh appeared for the State of UP.

[Read Order]