ALLAHABAD — The Allahabad High Court has recommended the registration of FIRs against lawyers involved in violence and vandalism inside Court No. 49 on October 28, while also initiating contempt of court proceedings.
A Bench of Justice Ajay Bhanot and Justice Divesh Chandra Samant observed that the lawyers' conduct constituted criminal contempt, scandalized the Court, and obstructed the administration of justice. "The Court cannot turn a blind eye to the incident in the name of harmony between the Bar and Bench. Appeasement of violence in Court will make the Courts vulnerable to blackmail and not prevent recurrence of violence," the Bench remarked.
The incident occurred when a group of lawyers allegedly disrupted proceedings, assaulted Additional Government Advocates including Paritosh Kumar Malviya, Sanjeev Pandey, Pradeep Jaiswar and Sandeep Tiwari, damaged court furniture, and physically attacked security personnel. AGA Paritosh Kumar Malviya approached the judges in a distressed condition with a swollen face, informing them he had been savagely assaulted inside the courtroom after the Court rose and threatened for appearing on behalf of the State.
Senior Advocate VP Srivastava appeared before the Bench and clarified that no incident of humiliation had taken place on October 27, as alleged by the Bar Association, while he was present. Proceedings had remained amicable during his presence. However, other lawyers began shouting loudly, making it impossible for the Court to conduct proceedings, after which the Court consequently rose.
After the judges returned to their chambers, AGA Paritosh Kumar Malviya approached them with a swollen face and walking difficulty, stating that lawyers had assaulted him inside the courtroom. Other AGAs also informed the Court they had been assaulted and threatened. The Bench recorded that lawyers had hurled abuses at the Court, raised aggressive slogans, physically assaulted State law officers and court staff, and indulged in violence and vandalism during court hours. Court furniture was damaged and turned upside down, and security personnel were also physically attacked. "The Court could not function on account of the aforesaid criminal acts of the lawyers," the Bench observed.
The Bench found the allegations in a letter dated October 27 by the newly elected office-bearers of the Allahabad High Court Bar Association — seeking action over an alleged humiliation of an advocate and mocking of a senior advocate in Justice Bhanot's courtroom — to be factually incorrect. The Court noted that Srivastava himself had appeared and clarified no such incident had taken place, and that no order directing a lawyer be sent to jail had been passed. The Bench also observed that the Bar Association office-bearers had not approached the Court to verify the facts before issuing the letter.
The Bench recommended that the Chief Justice direct the Registrar General to ensure FIR is registered against the concerned lawyers for incitement to violence, conspiracy to commit violence, perpetration of violence and vandalism, and against persons who put out false social media posts concerning the incidents. The Court also proposed that such false posts be blocked and deleted. Criminal contempt proceedings were deemed liable against the concerned lawyers, and the matter was directed to be placed before the Chief Justice for prosecution in accordance with law.
The Bench concluded by appreciating Senior Advocate VP Srivastava and the AGAs who had spoken about the incident, observing that they had "stood on the burning deck to tell the truth and to uphold the process of this Court." The Registrar General's report dated October 28 was directed to be placed in a sealed cover.
The Court emphasized that dialogue between the Bar and Bench must be animated by mutual respect and that differences must not degenerate into violence or intimidation. "The obligation of the Bar to speak truth to power is not a license to incite violence against individuals and disaffection against the institution," the Bench observed. "Anarchy is not a species of dissent. Freedom of speech at the Bar is not the freedom to slander the Bench."
