The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, comprising Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Manjive Shukla, has taken serious note of the passive role played by local police personnel during an incident where individuals dressed in lawyers’ attire allegedly trespassed into a disputed property, vandalized premises, and intimidated workers in Lucknow. Taking up an urgent Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by advocate Saksham Singh, the Court directed the Commissioner of Police, Lucknow, to personally inquire into the matter, ordered senior police officials to appear before the Bench, and directed protection for the petitioner advocate.
Background of the Case
The PIL was instituted by advocate Saksham Singh in his personal capacity following an incident on the evening of July 7, 2026. Video clips circulating on social media showed a group of individuals in lawyers’ attire entering a premises at Dayanand Sewa Sansthan—utilized for cricket net practice and marriage functions—where they allegedly abused occupants, threatened staff, manhandled laborers, threw bricks, and damaged installed CCTV cameras.
An First Information Report (FIR) regarding the incident was registered by Smt. Manorama Mishra, President of Karam Pradopi, who claims possession of the property. The FIR specifically names Sri Amit Mishra, Rahul Shukla, Deepak Prakash, Arun Jaiswal, and Anand Mohan Tiwari, Advocates.
During proceedings, the petitioner informed the Court that both parties were called to the police station where advocate Saurabh Kumar Verma—the Junior Vice-President of the Central Bar Association who faces eight criminal cases and allegations of property grabbing—was present. Furthermore, a status report submitted by Learned Government Advocate Dr. V.K. Singh, as supplied by ACP Qaiserbagh, named accused Harshit Dixit, who is the brother of Sri Avneesh Dixit, General Secretary of the Central Bar Association.
Perusal of Evidence and Court’s Observations
The Court personally perused a video clip contained in a pen drive submitted as Annexure No. 2 to the petition. The footage depicted a large number of lawyers entering the premises, driving away staff and laborers, and roaming inside the property in an attempt to forcibly take over or grab the site.
In sharp criticism of such conduct, the Court noted the observations of Bar members that “such group of lawyers acting as vigilantes promise to solve such dispute in an extra-legal manner putting not only the legal profession to disrepute but also circumventing the process of law and compromising it.”
The Court further observed that despite 10 to 15 police personnel being visible on the spot throughout the four-hour incident—which lasted from 10:00 AM to 02:00 PM—no concrete steps were taken to stop the perpetrators or apprehend them before the ACP arrived post 02:00 PM. Upon questioning why additional forces were not summoned to apprehend the trespassers, the ACP stated that force was called but could not explain why no individuals were detained.
Expressing stern concern over the conduct of the law enforcement team present at the scene, the Bench observed that “the police personnel appeared to be treating the transgressors in quite a friendly manner and were visibly passive. We do not want to say much, except that the possibility of the local police personnel having facilitated the said illegalities cannot be ruled out.”
Directions of the Court
Considering the serious nature of the matter, the High Court issued the following directives:
- Impleaded the Bar Council of India through its Secretary, New Delhi, and the U.P. Bar Council through its Secretary, Prayagraj, as parties to the petition.
- Directed the Commissioner of Police, Lucknow, to view the video clip and conduct an inquiry into why appropriate action was not taken by police personnel present at the spot.
- Directed the Commissioner of Police, Lucknow, to join the court proceedings via video conferencing on July 23, 2026, at 02:15 PM.
- Ordered the Joint Commissioner of Police (Law and Order), DCP, and ACP concerned to physically appear before the Court on July 23, 2026.
- Directed the Police Commissioner, Lucknow, to ensure the safety and security of the petitioner, advocate Saksham Singh.
- Ordered the video footage pen drive to be preserved in a sealed cover with court records and saved separately on court computers.
The matter has been connected with Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 8810 of 2023 for further hearing.
Case Title: Saksham Singh (Advocate) Versus State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home Govt. Of U.P. And 3 Others
Case No.: Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No.682 of 2026
Bench: Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Manjive Shukla
Date: July 22, 2026
