‘Advocates with Criminal Backgrounds Affect Judicial Work’: Allahabad HC Orders Statewide Data on Cases Against Lawyers

The Allahabad High Court has directed the Uttar Pradesh Director General of Police, the Director General of Prosecution, and all district police and prosecution officers to furnish district-wise details of every criminal case pending against advocates enrolled with the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh.

The order was passed by Justice Vinod Diwakar while hearing a petition under Article 227 arising from the dismissal of a plea to summon certain police officers in a complaint case.

The bench examined a series of affidavits filed by petitioner Advocate Mohammad Kafeel, including two supplementary affidavits dated 13 and 19 November 2025, as well as affidavits placed by the State regarding criminal antecedents connected to the matter.

According to the materials on record, the petitioner admitted that he was implicated in three criminal cases, one of which was registered under the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act.

He also informed the court that he was a practising advocate enrolled in 2022 and a lifetime member of the District Bar Association, Etawah. He relied on earlier orders granting him anticipatory bail, regular bail and interim protection in the pending cases.

The petitioner further alleged that he was assaulted at a railway-station egg stall on 13 November 2025 by a police constable. He placed on record a complaint to the Senior Superintendent of Police, a request to preserve CCTV footage, and documents relating to an FIR lodged against him by the same constable in connection with the incident. An injury report of the constable was also placed before the court.

Parallelly, the State produced a detailed affidavit of the Inspector of P.S. Kotwali listing criminal cases not only against the petitioner but also against all his brothers.

Court recorded that the petitioner was involved in three cases while his brothers faced numerous allegations under offences ranging from assault, extortion and criminal intimidation to violations of the Cow Slaughter Act, Arms Act and, in one instance, POCSO. Several cases date back more than a decade.

After examining the record, court observed that the presence of advocates with serious criminal backgrounds in district courts, sometimes even holding bar association posts, has in several instances affected the functioning of the district judiciary.

While acknowledging that every person is presumed innocent until proven guilty, court noted that antecedents inevitably bear upon professional integrity and the administration of justice.

It stressed that individuals facing serious allegations may influence police or court proceedings while operating under the “cloak of professional legitimacy".

Cautioning that any circumstance undermining public confidence in the judicial system requires close scrutiny, court invoked its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 to seek comprehensive data on all advocates against whom criminal cases are pending.

It clarified that the information may be submitted directly or through the Registrar General and may be placed in a sealed cover where the officer concerned considers it appropriate.

The bench specified the details required: FIR number and date, offences invoked, police station, investigation status, charge-sheet date, charge-framing date, number of prosecution witnesses examined and the present stage of trial.

Court also directed the DGP to gather police-side information from all districts, while the DGP (Prosecution) must collate prosecution-side details from Joint Directors and Special Public Prosecutors. The Home Department has been directed to ensure that the exercise is completed without delay.

Stating that any laxity by the administration will be viewed seriously, court directed that a copy of the order be communicated immediately for compliance and fixed the matter for 9 December 2025 at 3 pm.

Case Title: Mohammad Kafeel vs. State of U.P. and Another

Order Date: November 26, 2025

Bench: Justice Vinod Diwakar