Allahabad HC Seeks Criminal Contempt Action, FIRs Against Lawyers Over October 28 Courtroom Violence

The Allahabad High Court has initiated the process for criminal contempt proceedings against lawyers who allegedly assaulted government advocates, court staff and security personnel, and vandalised a courtroom during a violent disruption of proceedings on October 28.

A bench of Justices Ajay Bhanot and Divesh Chandra Samant, through an in-chamber order passed on October 29, asked the chief justice to place the matter before an appropriate bench for prosecution of criminal contempt proceedings against the concerned lawyers as per law.

The bench also requested the chief justice to consider directions for registration of FIRs against the lawyers for allegedly instigating, conspiring to commit and perpetrating violence inside the court. The order was uploaded to the high court website on November 2.

The division bench held that a letter issued by the newly elected office-bearers of the Allahabad High Court Bar Association, alleging humiliation of lawyers by the court, contained false imputations and provocative language that had a discernible nexus with the violence that subsequently erupted inside Court No. 49 on October 28.

"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. Violence is not sated by appeasement," the bench said. 

The controversy began on October 27, when the newly elected office-bearers of the Allahabad High Court Bar Association wrote to the chief justice alleging that Justice Bhanot had humiliated an advocate over an objection to a police officer occupying a separate seat in the courtroom. The Association threatened to boycott his court if action was not taken.

The following day, lawyers protested inside the high court premises, with some allegedly raising slogans and vandalising Justice Bhanot's courtroom.

Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, who was presiding over the bench in another courtroom, subsequently directed the Registrar (Protocol) to examine CCTV footage and identify the advocates involved in the sloganeering and disruption of proceedings in Court No. 66, with a view to initiating contempt and disciplinary proceedings. The controversy continued with the Bar Association approaching the Awadh Bar Association to intervene in the matter concerning Justice Deshwal.

In its in-chamber order, the division bench rejected the Bar Association's allegations, stating that no adverse order had been passed or dictated against any advocate. It said the lawyer had voluntarily apologised after the court apprised him of the legal consequences of his conduct.

Court explained that the separate seating arrangement was intended for officials summoned to assist it in judicial proceedings, enabling them to follow the proceedings and provide effective assistance. It clarified that no such arrangement was made for officials summoned to face contempt proceedings.

The judges also noted that Senior Advocate V.P. Srivastava, whose alleged humiliation was mentioned in the Bar Association's letter, had appeared before them on October 28 and expressly stated that no such incident had occurred with him.

Violence inside Court No. 49

The order states that the judges were informed about the situation in the courtroom on the morning of October 28 by the bench secretary, who reported that a group of lawyers had assembled and were shouting slogans.

After the court assembled, lawyers inside and outside the courtroom allegedly began shouting so loudly that the bench found it impossible to continue judicial proceedings and was compelled to rise.

After the judges returned to their chambers, Additional Government Advocate-I Paritosh Kumar Malviya rushed in, appearing visibly shaken, with a swollen face and difficulty walking.

Malviya informed them that a group of lawyers had assaulted him inside the courtroom immediately after the judges had risen. He alleged that the lawyers threatened him for defending the State in matters listed before the court and told him that he had to pay the price for doing so.

According to the order, Malviya survived the assault because of the intervention of another AGA, Sandeep Tiwari, and some lawyers advised him to rush to the judges' chambers to save his life.

He also informed the judges that other AGAs and court staff had been assaulted, the courtroom vandalised and the judges abused.

Other AGAs, including Sanjeev Pandey, Pradeep Kumar Jaiswar and Sandeep Tiwari, subsequently reached the judges' chambers and corroborated Malviya's account. Jaiswar also informed the court that he and other AGAs had been dragged by the lawyers.

Registrar General's report corroborated violence

The bench subsequently called the Registrar General and sought a report on the incident. The Registrar General informed the judges that he had already taken cognizance of the matter administratively and had visited the courtroom to manage the situation.

In his report submitted on October 28, the Registrar General stated that, apart from Malviya and Jaiswar, other AGAs and court staff had also been assaulted.

The judges also examined video footage showing the assault on Malviya and the vandalism inside the courtroom. They observed that the lawyers who assaulted him were apparently identifiable in the footage.

Provocative letter, social media posts

Court observed that the October 27 letter issued by the Bar Association's newly elected office-bearers contained misleading allegations and provocative language. 

It also criticised the circulation of what it described as false news and disinformation on social media following the incident, stating that a narrative of falsehoods and half-truths had been propagated to bring the high court into disrepute.

The bench said that while criticism and analysis of judicial judgments were legitimate rights of the legal fraternity and citizens, there were clear boundaries between criticism of judicial decisions and personal abuse or threats against judges.

"The obligation of the Bar to speak truth to power is not a license to incite violence against individuals and disaffection against the institution. Anarchy is not a species of dissent. Freedom of speech at the Bar is not the freedom to slander the bench," the bench said.

Court requested the chief justice to consider directions for registration of an FIR against persons who published false social media posts concerning the incidents and for blocking and deleting such posts relating to October 27 and 28.

Before parting, court emphasised that the State had a duty to protect its own law officers.

"It would be a travesty of law and justice if the State fails to protect its own law officers who are threatened and attacked for discharging their duties for the State before this court," the bench said. 

Case Title: In Re: Commission of Criminal Contempt and Criminal Offences by Lawyers in Court No. 49 on 28.10.202

Bench: Justice Ajay Bhanot and Justice Divesh Chandra Samant

Order Date: October 29, 2026