Prayagraj: A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court has held that a group of lawyers prima facie committed criminal contempt and criminal offences in Court No. 49 on 28 October 2026, and has asked the Chief Justice to place the matter before the appropriate Bench for criminal contempt proceedings.
The Bench of Justice Ajay Bhanot and Justice Divesh Chandra Samant, in an in-chamber order dated 29 October 2026, also asked that the Registrar General be directed to ensure registration of an FIR against the lawyers concerned, and against persons who spread false posts about the incidents on social media.
The Bench recorded that, as the Court sat on 28 October, Senior Advocate V.P. Srivastava referred to the letter dated 27.10.2026 of the newly elected office-bearers of the Allahabad High Court Bar Association, and stated that he had not been humiliated by the Court the previous day. Soon after, the Bench said, lawyers inside and outside the courtroom started shouting so loudly that it became impossible to conduct the proceedings, and the Court had to rise.
The Bench recorded that A.G.A.-I Paritosh Kumar Malviya then came to its chambers with a swollen face and in great pain, and said that a group of lawyers had assaulted him in the courtroom after the Court rose and threatened him for defending the State. A doctor from the High Court Dispensary was called. Other AGAs told the Bench that they had also been dragged, and that the chairs in the courtroom had been removed before 10 AM, which the Bench took to suggest advance planning.
The Court said that the report of the Registrar General, submitted on the evening of 28 October, disclosed that other AGAs and court staff were also assaulted, the courtroom was vandalised, and security personnel on duty were attacked. The Bench also noted that videos shown to it depict the assault on Mr. Malviya, in which the persons involved are apparently identifiable.
The Bench held that the genesis of the incidents is the letter dated 27.10.2026, signed by Dr. C.P. Upadhyay, Senior Advocate, and Santosh Kumar Mishra, Advocate, as President-elect and General Secretary-elect, and found a “live nexus” between the letter’s alleged false imputations and the violence that followed. It termed the recitals in the letter misleading.
On the seating arrangement, the Bench said that a chair is provided to an official called to assist the Court so that he can follow the proceedings closely, that it was never objected to by the Bar, and that no lawyer is inconvenienced. It said that no separate arrangement is made for officials summoned for contempt, and that in the past two months some counsel had misbehaved with and roughed up officials who had appeared to assist the Court.
The Bench said that on 27 October, a senior police official had appeared with records in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 14975 of 2026 (Naman @ Anurudha Kumar v. State of U.P. and 3 others). According to the Bench, the AGA pointed out that a counsel had misbehaved with him and tried to physically shove him away. The counsel, it said, did not deny this, was warned of the consequences, and then chose to apologise to the official. The Bench held that he was not forced to apologise, and that the letter’s allegation that Justice Bhanot pointed a finger and ordered the lawyer to be sent to jail is a “total falsehood”, as no such order was passed or exists on the record. It added that no office-bearer approached the Court before issuing the letter.
Holding that the allegation of humiliation of Mr. Srivastava was also untrue, the Bench praised him for standing alone in open court to state the truth, “braving an aggressive mob” of lawyers. It recorded as established that a group of lawyers interfered with court proceedings, assaulted the AGAs and two court staff, ransacked the courtroom, and attacked CRPF and police personnel on duty.
The Bench devoted a part of the order to social media, holding that false narratives about the incident had been spread to bring the High Court into disrepute, and that the law and free-speech principles must be revisited for such technology. It reaffirmed that criticism of judgments is a right, but that there are “red lines”, and that “Anarchy is not a species of dissent.” It stressed that Government Advocates are Advocates and officers of the Court, who “do not stand at any lower pedestal”.
Referring to its earlier observations on the criminalisation of the Bar, including in Mohammad Kafeel v. State of U.P. and the Lucknow Bench’s suo motu PIL on violence by lawyers on 21.07.2026, the Bench held that the Court cannot turn a blind eye in the name of Bar-Bench harmony, as appeasement of violence will only make Courts vulnerable. It also stressed the duty of the State to protect its own law officers.
The directions are that criminal contempt proceedings be drawn against the concerned lawyers, that the matter be placed before the Chief Justice for transmission to the appropriate Bench, and that the Chief Justice consider directing the Registrar General to ensure FIRs are registered for incitement to violence, conspiracy, violence and vandalism, and against persons who put out false social media posts, and to ensure that such posts about the incidents of 27 and 28 October 2026 are blocked and deleted.
The Registrar General’s report is to be kept in a sealed cover on the record.
Case Title: In Re: Commission of Criminal Contempt and Criminal Offences by Lawyers in Court No. 49 on 28.10.2026
!["No Loudspeakers For Azan, No Fundamental Right To Create Noise," Says Allahabad HC To Two Mosques [Read Judgment]](/secure/uploads/2020/01/lj_4995_Allahabad_HC_AZAN.jpg)
