In a significant development, the Allahabad High Court has directed the Director General of Police (DGP), Uttar Pradesh, and the Director General of Police (Prosecution) to submit comprehensive details of criminal cases pending against advocates enrolled with the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh. The Court observed that advocates with criminal antecedents occupying positions of influence pose a “potential threat to the rule of law.”
The Single Judge Bench of Justice Vinod Diwakar was hearing a petition filed by Mohammad Kafeel, a practicing advocate, challenging the dismissal of his complaint case against police officers. Upon finding that the petitioner himself is involved in multiple criminal cases, including under the Gangsters Act, and that his brothers are identified as “hardened criminals,” the Court expanded the scope of the inquiry. The Court has called for data on criminal cases against advocates statewide to assess the impact of such antecedents on the administration of justice.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Mohammad Kafeel, approached the High Court under Article 227 challenging the order dated March 18, 2025, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Etawah. The Sessions Court had dismissed Criminal Revision No. 131 of 2024, affirming the Chief Judicial Magistrate’s order dated March 22, 2024, which declined the petitioner’s prayer to summon police officers in a complaint case.
During the proceedings, the State filed a compliance affidavit detailing the criminal antecedents of the petitioner and his brothers. The petitioner also filed supplementary affidavits admitting to certain criminal cases registered against him while alleging police atrocities.
Facts and Arguments
The affidavit filed by the Inspector of Police Station Kotwali, District Etawah, revealed that the petitioner is involved in three criminal cases:
- FIR No. 0023 of 2023: Under Sections 506, 504, 323 IPC.
- FIR No. 0358 of 2023: Under Sections 120-B, 506, 384, 406, 471, 468, 467, 420 IPC.
- FIR No. 0159 of 2024: Under Section 3/2 of the U.P. Gangsters Act.
The petitioner stated that he is a practicing advocate registered with the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh (Enrollment No. UP01413/2022) and a life-time member of the District Bar Association. He alleged that on November 13, 2025, he was assaulted by a police constable while eating at an egg stall near the railway station.
The State’s affidavit further disclosed that the petitioner’s five brothers—Shakeel, Naushad, Akeel, Faizan @ Guddan, and Dilshad—are named in numerous criminal cases involving serious offenses such as attempted murder, cow slaughter, gambling, and offenses under the Gangsters Act and POCSO Act.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
Justice Vinod Diwakar noted that it “stands admitted that the petitioner is implicated in three criminal cases, and that all his brothers are identified as hardened criminals.” The Court emphasized the need to assess whether the petitioner’s conduct affects the functioning of the courts and his ability to discharge professional duties.
The Court made the following key observations regarding advocates with criminal backgrounds:
- On Professional Integrity: “The legal system derives its strength not merely from statutory provisions or judicial precedents, but from the moral legitimacy that flows from public confidence in its fairness and integrity. Advocates and office-bearers of Bar Associations occupy a unique institutional position—being both officers of the court and custodians of professional ethics.”
- On the Nexus between Crime and Conduct: “Crime originates in thought, and thought influences conduct; therefore, when individuals facing serious criminal allegations hold positions of influence within the legal system, there exists a legitimate concern that they may improperly exert influence over police authorities and judicial processes while operating under the cloak of professional legitimacy.”
- On Threat to Rule of Law: “Such situations—even if infrequent—pose a potential threat to the rule of law. Any circumstance that has the effect or tendency of undermining public confidence, and courts working in the impartial administration of justice, warrants close scrutiny.”
Decision and Directions
Exercising its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, the High Court held that it is “duty-bound to ensure that even the slightest threat to the rule of law is addressed with sensitivity.”
The Court issued the following directions:
- Submission of Data: All Commissioners/SSP/SP and Joint Directors (Prosecution) are directed to furnish comprehensive details of criminal cases pending against advocates enrolled with the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh.
- Format of Information: The details must be provided in a tabular format including:
- Date of registration of FIR and Crime Number.
- Penal provisions and Police Station.
- Status of investigation (pending or concluded).
- Date of filing charge-sheet and framing of charges.
- Details of witnesses examined and current status of trial.
- Responsibility: The Director General of Police (DGP) is responsible for submitting particulars relating to the police, and the Director General of Police (Prosecution) for information from the prosecution side.
- Timeline: The matter is listed for further hearing on December 9, 2025.
The Court warned that “Any lackadaisical approach by the administration shall be viewed seriously.”
Case Details:
- Case Title: Mohammad Kafeel Versus State of U.P. and Another
- Case No: Matters Under Article 227 No. 12231 of 2025
- Coram: Justice Vinod Diwakar
