Recently, the Allahabad High Court strongly disapproved of an eight-day strike by lawyers in Lucknow that followed an anti-encroachment drive near the District Court complex, describing the boycott of judicial work as illegal and unjustified. While examining reports relating to the protest, the Bench found itself confronted with allegations of provocative speeches, videos circulating against the administration and police, and even the distribution of plastic lathis among advocates. Viewing these developments as a matter affecting the dignity of the institution and the administration of justice, the Court signalled that the conduct of certain office-bearers and advocates required serious scrutiny.
The controversy began after local authorities initiated demolition of unauthorised structures near the District and Sessions Court premises pursuant to directions issued by the High Court. According to the authorities, efforts to remove the encroachments faced resistance from advocates present at the site, resulting in only a fraction of the identified structures being cleared. In response, the Central Bar Association and the Lucknow Bar Association resolved to abstain from judicial work for several days. The matter gained further significance when the Court received a confidential report from the District Judge along with videos allegedly showing provocative meetings, social media speeches targeting the administration and police, and the distribution of plastic lathis among advocates. The Court was informed that these activities had taken place during the period of the boycott, which had already disrupted court functioning and affected litigants appearing before the courts.
The Division Bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice Rajeev Bharti observed that the eight-day boycott of judicial work by advocates had caused serious prejudice to litigants, particularly those who had travelled from distant places only to find court proceedings brought to a standstill. Referring to the report submitted by the District Judge, the Court noted that the abstention from work had adversely affected the functioning of courts. The Court held that advocates cannot justify a strike or boycott of courts under the guise of the right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
The Court further observed that the right to strike claimed by advocates directly affects the constitutional rights of litigants. The Bench emphasised that judicial work cannot be suspended merely because lawyers have grievances with administrative actions or local authorities. Referring to the settled legal position, the Court noted that any disruption of court functioning undermines the right to speedy justice guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The Court also reminded members of the Bar that the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh had itself passed resolutions requiring advocates facing local issues to approach the Bar Council for redressal instead of calling strikes or boycotting courts.
The Bench took serious note of the material placed before it by the District Judge, including videos showing meetings of members of the Bar Associations and a video in which an advocate was seen distributing plastic lathis to advocates. The Court recorded that the distribution allegedly took place in the presence of office-bearers of the Bar Associations. The Bench further noted that slogans were allegedly raised that advocates "shall now handle the administration by means of these Lathies using force upon them (on administration and police)." The Court considered these developments while examining the conduct of the persons involved in the agitation.
The Court also took note of videos allegedly containing provocative statements directed against the administration and police. The Bench recorded that one of the advocates had allegedly delivered speeches on social media which, according to the material placed before the Court, were intended to provoke advocates. The Court considered these materials alongside the District Judge's report while assessing whether the conduct of the persons concerned warranted further action. The Bench also recorded that the General Secretary of the Central Bar Association had already issued an order expelling an advocate accused of distributing lathis and another advocate accused of making irresponsible comments against the Administrative Judge from the primary membership of the Association for five years.
The Bench held that although the material before it disclosed conduct requiring explanation, it would not immediately initiate criminal contempt proceedings in view of the disciplinary action already taken by the Bar Association against certain advocates. Instead, the Court decided to afford an opportunity to the concerned persons to explain their conduct.
Consequently, show-cause notices were issued to the office-bearers of the Central Bar Association, Lucknow, the Lucknow Bar Association, and three advocates specifically identified in the proceedings, calling upon them to explain why criminal contempt proceedings should not be initiated against them and why their conduct should not be referred to the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh. The Court granted them two weeks to file replies supported by affidavits, undertaking that they would follow the law laid down by the Supreme Court and maintain proper conduct and behaviour in the interest of the institution.
The matter has been listed for further hearing on July 27, 2026.
Case Title: Anuradha Singh and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Ors
Case No.: Criminal Writ-Public Interest Litigation No.4 of 2026
Coram: Hon'ble Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan, Hon'ble Justice Rajeev Bharti
Advocate for the Petitioner: Adv. Vijai Shankar Tripathi, Adv. Bal Keshwar Srivastava, Adv. Kuldeep Verma, Adv. Umesh Singh
Advocate for the Respondent: G.A., Adv. Aniket Srivastav, Adv. Bal Keshwar Srivastava, Adv. Jyotiresh Pandey, Adv. Suniti Sachan, Adv. Sarvesh Kumar Pandey, Adv. Shailendra Singh Chauhan
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
