The Allahabad High Court has directed that criminal trials involving advocates should be transferred to courts in adjoining districts at least 100 kilometres away and observed that lawyers facing criminal prosecution should not be permitted to appear in courts while such cases are pending against them.
The directions came from Justice Vinod Diwakar while dismissing a petition filed by an advocate from Etawah who had sought action against police personnel for initiating criminal proceedings against him. According to the court, the advocate is facing three criminal cases, while his five brothers are reportedly accused in 31 criminal cases.
The court also directed the Secretary of the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh to immediately ensure the registration of FIRs against all 105 advocates whose educational qualifications were found to be forged during the certificate verification process. The FIRs are to be registered for offences including forgery, cheating and impersonation, along with any other offences applicable to the facts of each case.
Court Flags Weak Disciplinary Action By Bar Council
Justice Diwakar observed that material placed before the court revealed a disturbing mismatch between the number of criminal cases registered against advocates and the disciplinary action initiated by the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh. While police data showed thousands of criminal cases involving advocates across the state, disciplinary proceedings had been initiated against only a small number of them.
According to the court, this indicated that the Bar Council’s internal regulatory and disciplinary mechanism had remained largely ineffective despite the scale of the problem.
Concerns Raised Over Criminal Influence In Bar Associations
The court recorded that office-bearers with criminal backgrounds were holding positions in several Bar Associations, including those in Gorakhpur and Kanpur. It further observed that groups of law graduates registered with Bar Councils had allegedly established themselves in district courts to enforce decrees, settle disputes outside the judicial process through coercion, intimidate vulnerable litigants and carry out forcible evictions.
The court expressed concern that many district judges had refrained from taking decisive action, allegedly because such groups were perceived to enjoy social and political patronage.
Justice Diwakar noted that this environment was making it increasingly difficult for young advocates and newly appointed judicial officers to discharge their duties independently and fairly.
Police Data Shows Thousands Of Criminal Cases Against Advocates
The statistical report placed before the court stated that 5,14,439 advocates are enrolled with the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh, of whom 2,49,809 have been issued Certificates of Practice.
The report further disclosed that 4,157 advocates are facing 5,056 criminal cases across 75 districts, seven commissionerates and Government Railway Police jurisdictions.
The court described it as a matter of grave concern that some advocates continued to practise despite facing as many as 46 FIRs.
Among individual police stations, Wazirgunj Police Station in Lucknow recorded the highest number of advocates facing criminal cases. According to the report, 422 advocates linked to the police station were facing 236 FIRs, a concentration the court described as unusually high compared to any other police station in the state.
Verification Exercise Described As Cosmetic
During verification of advocates’ qualifications, the Bar Council identified 105 advocates with forged educational credentials. These included forged LL.B. degrees in 65 cases, graduation degrees in 28 cases and integrated B.A. LL.B. degrees in five cases. Forged intermediate and high school certificates were detected in three cases each, while one advocate was found to have submitted a forged BCA degree.
The court observed that identifying only 105 fake-degree advocates among more than 5.14 lakh enrolled advocates appeared statistically implausible and prima facie suggested that the verification exercise had been merely cosmetic.
The court also criticised the absence of police verification while issuing Certificates of Practice, noting that unlike several other regulated professions, the legal profession in Uttar Pradesh had no mandatory system for criminal antecedent or character verification at the entry stage.
Justice Diwakar further noted that some advocates with forged qualifications had remained enrolled since 1991 and 1992. According to the court, they had appeared before courts and participated in judicial proceedings for decades without any legal entitlement to do so, raising concerns about the integrity of proceedings in which they had represented litigants.
Directions For Monitoring Criminal Cases Against Advocates
The High Court directed Commissioners of Police and Senior Superintendents of Police in every district to immediately inform the District Judge, Chief Judicial Magistrate and the Joint Director (Prosecution) whenever an FIR is registered against an advocate and again after a final report or charge sheet is filed. Copies of such FIRs must also be forwarded to the Secretary of the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh, while every police station has been directed to maintain a separate register for compliance.
The court also directed that every enrolled advocate should annually file an affidavit disclosing whether any criminal case had been registered, charge-sheeted or tried against them during the preceding year. It observed that false disclosure should result in automatic suspension of enrolment, with the Bar Council being permitted to cross-check such declarations using court records and police databases.
The Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh has been asked to submit a compliance report within 30 days. The matter has been listed for further hearing on August 20.
