Allahabad High Court Directs Fresh Notice To 72 Encroachers, Orders Demolition Of Illegal Advocate Chambers On Public Land If They Fail To Vacate
The Court issued show cause notices to bar office-bearers and advocates over nine-day strike in Lucknow.
Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench
The Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, has reiterated that strike or boycott of court proceedings by lawyers amounts to ex-facie contempt of court, and has directed the Lucknow Municipal Corporation to issue a final notice to 72 advocates and shopkeepers, many of them practising lawyers, who had illegally constructed chambers and shops on public land, ordering demolition of the encroachments if the occupants fail to vacate or establish a valid claim.
The Bench issued show cause notices to the office bearers of the Central Bar Association, Lucknow and the Lucknow Bar Association, Lucknow, along with three individual advocates implicated in provocative conduct, holding that a nine-day abstention from judicial work by the two associations in May 2026 was unjustified and illegal.
A Division Bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice Rajeev Bharti observed, “…remaining 72 encroachers are fully aware about the fact that those chambers/ shops being illegal and unauthorized would be demolished but as an abundant precaution, we find it appropriate that all those encroachers may be given one more opportunity either to vacate those chambers/ shops or to apprise the competent authority about their valid claim to hold such chambers/ shops, failing which the illegal encroachments would be demolished”.
“…Such exercise may take place on Sunday so that the judicial work could not be hampered or disturbed. The specific date of demolition may be apprised to those encroachers so that they could cooperate in such demolition drive. It is made clear that if on the date of demolition, any encroachers or their associates adopt any illegal device or involve in any illegal activity, the needful action may be taken against them, which is permissible under the law…”, the Bench further directed.
Advocate Vijai Shankar Tripathi appeared for the petitioner and Senior Advocate H.G.S. Parihar appeared for the respondent.
The Lucknow Municipal Corporation was directed to issue fresh written notice to all 72 encroachers within a week, with service by paper publication where necessary, granting ten days to vacate or establish valid claims, failing which demolition would proceed on a Sunday with coordinated police and administrative support, with the Commissioner of Police, District Magistrate and Municipal Commissioner directed to coordinate the exercise. The matter was listed next on September 10, 2026.
The proceedings arose out of a public interest litigation concerning removal of illegal encroachments, including advocates' chambers, on public pathways near Chakbast Crossing, Lucknow. During the pendency of the matter, members of the Central Bar Association, Lucknow and Lucknow Bar Association, Lucknow abstained from judicial work from May 18 to May 26, 2026, terming it "Samuhik Avakash," in the course of which one advocate was found distributing plastic lathies to fellow advocates at a meeting, with slogans exhorting advocates to confront the administration and police using force.
The District Judge, Lucknow forwarded a confidential report along with video and photographic evidence of the strike and the lathi distribution. The Central Bar Association subsequently issued show cause notices to three advocates and expelled two of them from primary membership for five years.
The Court had earlier, in Contempt Application (Criminal) No. 12 of 2024, directed that any strike or boycott by advocates in Uttar Pradesh would be treated as ex-facie criminal contempt, and had directed constitution of Grievance Redressal Committees at the High Court and district levels, incorporating the District Magistrate's nominee.
That order was communicated to all District Judges and Bar Associations across the State. Separately, in the present PIL, the Court on earlier occasions had directed the Lucknow Nagar Nigam to demolish illegal encroachments, pursuant to which only 14 of 72 marked encroachments could be removed on account of obstruction by advocates present at the site.
Considering that the Central Bar Association had itself taken disciplinary action against two erring advocates, the Court refrained from initiating contempt proceedings immediately and instead issued show cause notices to the office bearers of both associations and the three named advocates, calling for explanations within two weeks. On the encroachment issue, the Court declined to accept a plea for leniency on behalf of advocates who had constructed unauthorised chambers, holding that fresh notice with ten days' opportunity to establish valid claims must be given before any further demolition, to be carried out only with coordinated administrative and police support to prevent a law-and-order situation.
Cause Title: Anuradha Singh and Others v. State of U.P. through Prin. Secy. Home, Lko and Others, Criminal Writ-Public Interest Litigation No. 4 of 2026
Appearances:
Petitioners: Vijai Shankar Tripathi, Bal Keshwar Srivastava, Ishita Srivastava, Kuldeep Verma, Suresh Chandra Shukla and Umesh Singh, Advocates.
Respondents: G.A. (State Counsel), Adesh Kumar, Aniket Srivastav, Bal Keshwar Srivastava, Divyarth Singh Chauhan, Jyotiresh Pandey, Suniti Sachan, Ravindra Nath Singh, Sarvesh Kumar Pandey, Shailendra Singh Chauhan, Shubham Gupta, Suresh Chandra Shukla, Susheel Kumar, Upendra Kumar Sagar and Vikalp Shukla for the Respondents. H.G.S. Parihar, Senior Advocate, assisted by Divyarth Singh Chauhan, for the President and Secretary, Lucknow Bar Association. Jyotiresh Pandey for Central Bar Association, Lucknow. Shailendra Singh Chauhan for Lucknow Nagar Nigam. Bipul Kumar Singh, State Counsel.