The Allahabad High Court has recommended registration of FIRs against lawyers allegedly involved in vandalising a courtroom, assaulting government counsel and court staff, and disrupting judicial proceedings following a controversy involving Justice Ajay Bhanot.
A Division Bench of Justice Ajay Bhanot and Justice Divesh Chandra Samant has also found that the conduct of the lawyers prima facie attracts criminal contempt. It has accordingly referred the matter to the Chief Justice for placing it before an appropriate Bench for initiating criminal contempt proceedings in accordance with law.
The recommendations follow an incident on October 28, when a group of lawyers allegedly created a ruckus in Justice Bhanot’s courtroom, damaged furniture and assaulted Additional Government Advocates and court personnel.
The Bench has requested the Chief Justice to consider directing the Registrar General to ensure registration of an FIR against the lawyers for alleged incitement to violence, criminal conspiracy, assault and vandalism within the court premises. It has also recommended action against individuals who allegedly circulated false information about the incident on social media, along with steps to remove such posts.
The controversy arose from an incident on October 27, when an advocate objected to a Superintendent of Police occupying a seat in the courtroom that was ordinarily used by lawyers.
According to the Allahabad High Court Bar Association, the advocate was reprimanded after raising the objection and was allegedly asked by Justice Bhanot to apologise to the police officer. The association further alleged that the judge had threatened to send the lawyer to jail and made disparaging remarks against Senior Advocate V.P. Srivastava.
In a letter addressed to the Chief Justice of the High Court, the newly elected office-bearers of the Bar Association, President-elect Dr C.P. Upadhyay and General Secretary-elect Santosh Kumar Mishra, sought intervention and warned that advocates would boycott Justice Bhanot’s court if appropriate action was not taken.
However, the Bench subsequently disputed the allegations. Referring to the statement made by Senior Advocate V.P. Srivastava, the Court recorded that he had clarified that he was not humiliated during the proceedings. It also stated that no order directing the advocate to be sent to jail had been dictated or formed part of the judicial record.
The Court observed that the advocate had voluntarily expressed regret and that an expression of remorse should not be construed as humiliation.
Recounting the events of October 28, the Bench noted that a group of lawyers allegedly disrupted proceedings through aggressive sloganeering and created an atmosphere in which the Court could not function.
The order records that after the judges rose and returned to their chambers, Additional Government Advocate Paritosh Kumar Malviya approached them in a distressed condition. His face was swollen, and he was experiencing difficulty walking.
He informed the judges that he had been assaulted by a group of lawyers inside the courtroom because of his appearance on behalf of the State. Other government advocates also reported being assaulted and threatened.
The Bench further referred to damage caused to courtroom furniture and physical attacks on court staff and security personnel.
Taking a serious view of the incident, the Court observed that differences between members of the Bar and the Bench must be resolved through established institutional mechanisms and cannot become a justification for violence or intimidation.
Emphasising the importance of maintaining institutional discipline, the Bench observed that the relationship between the Bar and the Bench must be founded on mutual respect and adherence to the rule of law.
It remarked that the Bar’s responsibility to question authority and raise legitimate concerns does not confer any licence to incite violence against individuals or undermine the judiciary.
The Court observed that appeasing violence within court premises would expose judicial institutions to intimidation and blackmail rather than prevent the recurrence of such incidents.
It further cautioned against the circulation of misleading narratives on social media, observing that false information concerning judicial proceedings could damage the reputation of judges and erode public confidence in constitutional institutions.
The Bench also expressed concern over the impact of such incidents on younger members of the legal profession, emphasising the need to nurture professional competence and uphold the established traditions of the Bar.
The Court ultimately referred the matter to the Chief Justice for consideration of the recommended FIRs and transmission of the criminal contempt reference to an appropriate Bench.
The post Allahabad High Court recommends FIR against lawyers over courtroom vandalism, seeks criminal contempt proceedings appeared first on India Legal.