Taking suo motu cognizance of a violent incident inside the Lucknow District Court campus where a litigant was assaulted and threatened, a division bench of the Allahabad High Court at Lucknow, comprising Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Manjive Shukla, barred four advocates from entering any court premises in Lucknow District until August 24, 2026. Addressing allegations of land-grabbing, organized misconduct, and lawlessness by a section of lawyers, the High Court issued comprehensive directions, including a discreet inquiry by the Intelligence Bureau (IB), submission of ten-year income tax returns, complete disclosure of assets, and police security for the victim.
Background of the Case
The proceedings arose from an application (I.A. No. 08 of 2026) presented by advocates Ms. Abhipsa Mohanty, Ms. Komal Agarwal, and Shri Ashutosh Shrivastava, detailing an incident that occurred on July 21, 2026, within the Lucknow District Court premises. The High Court ordered the application to be registered as a separate Suo Motu Public Interest Litigation.
During the incident, Mohd. Shakir, plaintiff No. 1 in civil suit No. 2933 of 2025, was manhandled, thrashed, dragged to the Central Bar Association office, and threatened with death if he continued to pursue his lawsuit. Following the assault, an FIR (Case Crime No. 0174 of 2026) was registered at Police Station Wazeerganj under Sections 109, 191(2), 115(2), 127(2), and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.
Mohd. Shakir appeared in person before the High Court and broke down while describing how he was thrashed by advocates Saurabh Kumar Verma (Junior Vice-President of the Central Bar Association, Lucknow), Harshit Pandey, Yash Pandey, Abhay Pratap Verma, and their accomplices. Reports and CCTV footage submitted in sealed covers by the District Judge, Lucknow, and the Commissioner of Police, Lucknow, corroborated the physical assault and identified the four advocates as the primary perpetrators.
Arguments and Counsel Appearances
During the hearing, advocates Ms. Abhipsa Mohanty, Ms. Komal Agarwal, and Shri Ashutosh Shrivastava represented the applicants. They informed the bench that Advocate Saurabh Kumar Verma carried a firearm during the incident and instructed Advocate Abhay Pratap Verma to place it in Shakir’s hands to frame him in a criminal case. They added that Shakir was illegally detained at the Central Bar Association for hours before being brought to Police Station Wazeerganj.
Government Advocate Dr. V.K. Singh, assisted by A.G.A.-I Shri Girijesh Kumar Dwivedi and State Law Officer (Criminal) Shri Shivendra Shivam Singh Rathore, appeared for the State of U.P. Government Advocate Dr. V.K. Singh presented criminal records showing that Saurabh Kumar Verma is named in eight criminal cases across various police stations in Lucknow involving charges of theft, criminal breach of trust, forgery, rioting, and assault. Advocate Harshit Pandey was also shown to have one pending criminal case.
Advocate Anupam Mehrotra, instructed by Advocate Sadiq Hasan, appeared on behalf of Advocate Saurabh Kumar Verma. Mehrotra initially claimed that Mohd. Shakir was an advocate operating as a property dealer. Upon direct questioning by the Court, Shakir clarified that he is not an advocate but a government employee posted at Rajkiya Medical College in Azamgarh. Counsel later conceded there was a communication gap in instructions.
Further facts revealed that Saurabh Kumar Verma was defendant No. 1 in Suit No. 2933 of 2025 and had purchased the contested property via a sale deed during the pendency of an earlier suit (Suit No. 1317 of 2022). The bench observed that if Verma had a professional engagement in the earlier suit, purchasing the litigated property would violate Rule 22A of Chapter II, Part VI of the Bar Council of India Rules, 1975 (Standards of Professional Conduct and Etiquette), framed under Section 49(1)(c) of the Advocates Act, 1961.
Deputy Solicitor General of India (D.S.G.I.) Shri S.B. Pandey, assisted by Advocate Shri Raj Kumar Singh, represented the Union of India, while Advocate Shri Anurag Kumar Singh appeared for the Central Bureau of Investigation (C.B.I.). President Shri Akhilesh Jaiswal and Secretary Shri Avnish Dixit of the Central Bar Association, Lucknow, were present in Court alongside Advocate Dr. L.P. Mishra. Additionally, Advocate Shri Kushagra Dixit was designated to represent the Income Tax Department.
Conversely, the Commissioner of Police reported an application by Advocate Harshit Pandey claiming an unidentified individual had fired a gun. However, police reports and CCTV footage revealed no evidence of any firearm being carried or discharged by the plaintiff or his associates.
Court’s Observations and Analysis
Examining the CCTV footage and reports, the Court expressed deep concern over the lawlessness inside the district court campus and security lapses on the part of court security personnel.
Critiquing the conduct of the lawyers, the bench observed: “In the case at hand, lawyers ran amok freely, abused, humiliated & manhandled a litigant at will, threatened him with dire consequences, as alleged by the applicants and Mohd. Shakir-the informant of the F.I.R.”
The High Court highlighted a recurring pattern of misconduct by groups of lawyers in the district court: “In District Court, Lucknow there are groups of Advocates who indulge in property delaing and grabbing and in that process also manipulate and influence court proceedings in their favour or in the favour of litigants who approach them and use all means to ensure the same including pressurizing and threatening Advocates from appearing on behalf of the contesting parties and some time attempting to exercise influence upon the court itself by various means.”
Emphasizing that stern administrative and legal intervention is required to restore public trust, the Court stated: “The time for harsh words appears to be over as these have not have had the desired effect. It is now time for action for the police and all other stakeholders who can remedy the situation.”
The bench noted that the actions of the advocates constituted severe breaches of judicial integrity: “From the facts and material on record before us prima facie a case of gross professional misconduct, abuse of process of law, gross interference with due course of judicial proceedings, interference and obstruction in the administration of justice has occurred for which the aforesaid Advocates mentioned in this order appear to be liable.”
Prioritizing justice over procedure, the Court held: “Considering the gravity of the situation, we will not be bound by technicalities and procedural niceties as we need to ensure that order and not chaos prevails in the District Court Campus, Lucknow and the courts are able to render justice unhindered without any obstruction and interference from any quarter.”
Directions and Final Decision
To ensure the safety of litigants and maintain the integrity of judicial proceedings, the High Court issued the following directions:
- Interim Prohibition: Advocates Saurabh Kumar Verma, Harshit Pandey, Yash Pandey, and Abhay Pratap Verma are prohibited from entering any court premises in Lucknow District until the next date of listing (August 24, 2026).
- Financial Disclosures: The four advocates are ordered to file affidavits containing copies of their Income Tax Returns for the last 10 years, details of all living family members (parents, siblings, spouse, children), and full disclosure of assets, businesses, and property transactions (sales, leases, gifts) executed by them or their family over the past five years.
- Litigation Disclosure: The four advocates must furnish details of all civil cases where they are either parties or appearing as counsel.
- Intelligence Bureau Inquiry: The local office of the Intelligence Bureau (IB) at Lucknow, led by a Joint Director, is directed to conduct a discreet inquiry into the antecedents and activities of the four advocates and submit a report in a sealed cover.
- Sealing of Records: The District Judge, Lucknow, is directed to seal the suit records of Suit No. 1317 of 2022 and Suit No. 2933 of 2025, to be kept in the personal custody of the Senior Registrar.
- Protection for Litigant: The Senior Superintendent of Police, Azamgarh, is directed to provide adequate security to plaintiff Mohd. Shakir at Azamgarh until further orders.
- Applicability of BNS Provisions: Police authorities were directed to examine whether Section 111 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (pertaining to organized crime) is applicable to the case.
- Impleadments: The Bar Council of India, U.P. Bar Council, Union Ministries of Home and Law & Justice, Director General of Police (U.P.), Income Tax Department, and Central Bar Association were impleaded as parties to the proceedings.
The matter is scheduled for further hearing on August 24, 2026.
Case Title: Suo Motu Cognizance of Incident Dated 21/07/2026 in the Court Premises v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.
Case No.: Criminal Writ-Public Interest Litigation No. 8 of 2026
Bench: Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Manjive Shukla
Date: July 28, 2026
