The Allahabad High Court has strongly criticized the actions of the Agra police for allegedly restricting the movement of a senior lawyer, Mahatab Singh, on the mere apprehension that he might make a complaint against a judicial officer. The division bench, comprising Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Donadi Ramesh, has sought a detailed explanation from the Commissioner of Police, Agra, on the justification for issuing a notice under Section 168 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, and for monitoring the movement of the petitioner.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Mahatab Singh, a 70-year-old practicing advocate at the District and Sessions Court, Agra, alleged that he was placed under house arrest on November 15, 2024, when the Administrative Judge was scheduled to inspect the court premises. According to Singh, four police officers arrived at his residence and handed him a notice under Section 168 BNSS, purportedly on the instructions of the District and Sessions Judge, Agra. He claimed that he was confined from 6 AM to 4 PM, preventing him from meeting the Administrative Judge.
Singh alleged that this restriction was orchestrated to prevent him from reporting alleged judicial misconduct to the visiting judge. He attached photographs showing police officers stationed at his residence as evidence.
Court’s Observations and Findings
The High Court took serious note of the allegations and sought a personal affidavit from the Commissioner of Police, Agra. The police justified their actions, citing intelligence reports that some advocates, including Singh, might disrupt the Administrative Judge’s visit. The police also referenced criminal cases from 1988 against Singh to support their stance.
However, the court strongly rebuked this justification, stating:
“We fail to understand what was the need and occasion for the police personnel to serve a notice under Section 168 BNSS upon the petitioner on account of the visit of the Administrative Judge.”
The bench further remarked:
“Even if the petitioner was implicated in a case 37 years ago, this itself would not be sufficient reason to issue a notice under Section 168 BNSS in 2024.”
Police’s Explanation Raises More Concerns
The District Judge, Agra, submitted a sealed report in which he denied any involvement in ordering police action against Singh. He stated that the decision was made at the police’s discretion. However, the court found this explanation troubling:
“It would be a sad day if a lawyer practicing in a district court is not allowed to attend court on account of restrictions imposed by police authorities, merely because the Administrative Judge is visiting the premises.”
The judges questioned the police’s authority to act independently and emphasized that interference in legal professionals’ movements could jeopardize the administration of justice.
Legal Issues Involved
Violation of Fundamental Rights: The petitioner alleged that the police action violated his fundamental rights under Article 21 (Right to Life and Liberty) and Article 19 (Freedom of Movement and Expression) of the Indian Constitution.
Misuse of Section 168 BNSS: The court scrutinized whether the provision, which allows preventive measures against individuals likely to commit a cognizable offense, was wrongly invoked against an advocate without substantive grounds.
Judicial Independence: The case raised concerns about police interference in judicial affairs, particularly whether law enforcement could prevent advocates from presenting grievances to an Administrative Judge.
Court’s Directives
In light of these concerns, the High Court directed the Commissioner of Police, Agra, to:
Submit a detailed affidavit explaining the rationale for issuing the notice.
Clarify whether similar actions had been taken against other advocates in the past decade.
Provide records on any such restrictions imposed during previous visits of Administrative Judges.
Ensure the presence of relevant police officials in court for the next hearing.
The court also ordered that the sealed report from the District Judge be preserved and produced at the next hearing on March 18, 2025.
The petitioner was represented by Advocate Sandeep Mishra, while the State of Uttar Pradesh was represented by Additional Chief Standing Counsel Dr. D.K. Tripathi.
