Allahabad HC Orders Criminal Contempt Proceedings and FIRs After Lawyers Allegedly Assault State Law Officers and Vandalise Courtroom

Prayagraj- The Allahabad High Court has taken a serious view of the events in Court No. 49 on October 28. A Division Bench of Justice Ajay Bhanot and Justice Divesh Chandra Samant recorded that a group of lawyers disrupted proceedings, assaulted State Law Officers and court staff, and ransacked the courtroom. The Bench held that the conduct prima facie amounts to criminal contempt and to criminal offences. It has asked the Chief Justice to take further steps, including getting FIRs registered.

A group of lawyers had gathered in the courtroom on the morning of October 28 and was shouting slogans. When the court sat, Senior Advocate V.P. Srivastava referred to a letter dated October 27 from the newly elected Bar Association office bearers, which alleged he had been humiliated by the Bench the previous day. Srivastava told the court that no such incident had occurred.

The Bench recorded that lawyers inside and outside the courtroom then began shouting so loudly that proceedings became impossible, and the Court rose. It described the “menacing gestures and deafening uproar” as resembling “a riotous mob.”

Afterwards, AGA-I Paritosh Kumar Malviya ran into the judges’ chamber pleading to be saved. The Bench noted he had a swollen face and could barely walk. He said a group of lawyers had assaulted him in the courtroom and threatened that he “had to pay the price” for defending the State. A doctor from the High Court Dispensary was called. Other AGAs, Sanjeev Pandey, Pradeep Jaiswar and Sandeep Tiwari, corroborated his account, with Jaiswar saying he was also dragged. They told the Bench that chairs had been removed from the courtroom before 10 AM, suggesting advance planning.

The Bench traced the “genesis” of the violence to the October 27 letter signed by Senior Advocate Dr. C.P. Upadhyay, President-elect, and Santosh Kumar Mishra, General Secretary-elect. It called the letter misleading and, in parts, false.

On the allegation about special seating for police and senior officials, the Bench said the chair is provided to officials called to assist the Court, was never objected to in the past, and inconveniences no lawyer. It added that no such seating is arranged for officials summoned to face contempt proceedings.

On the allegation that a lawyer was forced to apologise, the Bench said that on October 27 a counsel had misbehaved with a senior police official who had come with records in a criminal writ petition. The lawyer did not deny it, was warned of the consequences, and then chose to apologise. The Bench said he was not forced, and that expressing regret “is not an act of humiliation, but a path to redemption.”

The Bench also called the allegation that Justice Bhanot pointed a finger and ordered a lawyer to jail “a total falsehood,” saying no such order was passed. It noted that no office bearer approached the Court to verify facts before issuing a letter calling for a strike, and said a “live nexus” could be discerned between the letter and the violence.

The judges described the events as part of a deeper malaise, calling criminalisation of the Bar “a faultline that is tearing at the very foundations of the judicial system in the State of Uttar Pradesh.” They relied on the Allahabad High Court’s earlier ruling in Mohammad Kafeel v. State of U.P., the Lucknow Bench’s suo motu proceedings over the July 21, 2026 violence at the District Court, and the Delhi High Court’s decision in Vikas Yadav v. State of NCT of Delhi. The Bench said failure to regulate entry into the profession and the decline of the chamber system had contributed.

On the dignity of all participants, the Bench held that Government Advocates are “Advocates and officers of the Court first” and stand on no lower pedestal than other advocates, and that the Court’s majesty is not diluted by a seating arrangement for an assisting official. It also said “anarchy is not a species of dissent.”

Directions

The Bench held that the facts prima facie disclose incitement to violence, conspiracy, violence and vandalism in court, and obstruction of government officials, and that the conduct constitutes criminal contempt. It directed that:

1. Criminal contempt proceedings be drawn against the concerned lawyers.

2. The matter be placed before the Chief Justice for transmission to the appropriate Bench.

3. The Chief Justice be requested to consider directing the Registrar General to register FIRs against the lawyers, and against persons who posted false social media content about the incidents, and to have such posts blocked and deleted.

4. The Registrar General’s report be kept in a sealed cover.

The Bench praised Srivastava for standing “alone in open Court to state the truth,” and commended AGAs Malviya, Pandey, Jaiswar, Shehnawaz Khan and Sandeep Tripathi. It also stressed the State’s duty to protect its law officers, calling failure to do so “a travesty of law and justice.”