Lawyers Ran Amok Freely, Abused, Humiliated & Manhandled A Litigant At Will: Allahabad High Court Bars Four Advocates From Entering Lucknow Court Premises
The Court ordered Intelligence Bureau probe into advocates' antecedents, directed disclosure of ten years' income tax returns and family assets, terms incident part of organised property-grabbing nexus operating within District Court, Lucknow.
The Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench has observed that a group of advocates ran amok, abused, humiliated and manhandled a litigant at will within the premises of the District Court, Lucknow, and threatened him with dire consequences for pursuing civil litigation against one of their own, prompting the Court to bar four identified advocates from entering any court premises in the district until further orders.
The Court further directed that the local unit of the Intelligence Bureau conduct a discreet inquiry into the antecedents and activities of the identified advocates, and directed them to disclose their income tax returns for the preceding ten years, details of movable and immovable assets held by them and their family members, and particulars of any property transactions in the last five years, holding that such disclosure was necessary to assess a suspected pattern of advocates amassing disproportionate wealth through property-grabbing disguised as litigation.
The Court was hearing a suo motu Public Interest Litigation registered following an incident on July 21, 2026 in the District Court premises, Lucknow, connected to an earlier bunch of writ petitions concerning advocate misconduct in the same court complex.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Manjive Shukla observed, “We find that 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…”.
“…Why the incident was not reported to the District Judge? Why suitable action was not taken? what were the handicaps? One can understand that within the court campus, the number of lawyers being huge, the police is hesitant to act but then a solution has to be found in this regard. Such handful of lawyers cannot be allowed to hold the justice delivery system to ransom. Strict measures are required while innocent and sincere lawyers should not be harassed and ill-treated. Those who are adamant to vitiate the atmosphere within the campus or outside have to be dealt with strictly”, the Bench further noted.
Advocate Abhipsa Mohanty appeared for the applicants and S.B. Pandey, Deputy Solicitor General of India appeared for the respondent.
The matter arose out of a civil dispute, filed by Mohd. Shakir, in which advocate Saurabh Kumar Verma figured as defendant No. 1 after purchasing the suit property during pendency of an earlier suit.
On July 21, 2026, Mohd. Shakir was allegedly dragged, beaten and forcibly taken to the Central Bar Association premises and thereafter to a police station by a mob of advocates, an incident partly captured on CCTV footage examined by the Court and independently verified through a report of the District Judge, Lucknow. An FIR under Sections 109, 191(2), 115(2), 127(2) and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 was registered on Mohd. Shakir's complaint.
On the previous date, the Court had directed the District Judge and Commissioner of Police, Lucknow to submit reports along with CCTV footage. On the present date, having examined these materials and heard Mohd. Shakir in person, the Court identified Saurabh Kumar Verma, Harshit Pandey, Yash Pandey and Abhay Pratap Verma as advocates seen in the footage assaulting the complainant, while noting that further identification of other participants, described as ten to twenty unknown advocates, remained pending.
The Court noted with concern that Saurabh Kumar Verma, currently Junior Vice-President of the Central Bar Association, Lucknow, had eight criminal cases registered against him across various police stations, and that counsel appearing on his behalf had initially made a misleading statement, later retracted, regarding the complainant's professional status.
The Bench observed that such advocates use their numbers and influence to grab property, fabricate documents, pressurise courts, and prevent opposing litigants from being represented, and held that the situation could no longer be addressed merely through strong words, calling instead for concrete action from police and Bar authorities alike.
Accordingly, the Court impleaded the Bar Council of India, U.P. Bar Council, Union of India, DGP U.P., Commissioner of Police Lucknow and the Central Bar Association as parties, directed sealing of the concerned suit records, ordered police protection for the complainant at Azamgarh, and listed the matter for further hearing on August 24, 2026.
Cause Title: Suo Motu Cognizance of Incident Dated 21/07/2026 in the Court Premises v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko., Criminal Writ-Public Interest Litigation No. 8 of 2026
Appearances:
Applicants: Abhipsa Mohanty, Komal Agarwal, Ashutosh Shrivastava, Advocates.
Respondent: Dr. V.K. Singh, Government Advocate, Girijesh Kumar Dwivedi, A.G.A.-I Shivendra Shivam Singh Rathore, State Law Officer (Criminal), S.B. Pandey, Deputy Solicitor General of India, Raj Kumar Singh, Anurag Kumar Singh, Anupam Mehrotra, Advocates.