Allahabad High Court Issues Criminal Contempt Show-Cause Notice To Bar Associations Over "Lathi" Distribution & Illegal Strikes In Lucknow

The Allahabad High Court has issued criminal contempt show-cause notices to the office bearers of the Central Bar Association and the Lucknow Bar Association, alongside three individual advocates, following an illegal structural strike and violent obstructions during a municipal anti-encroachment drive.

While taking serious cognizance of reports and video evidence depicting an advocate distributing plastic lathis to members of the Bar to threaten law enforcement, the Lucknow Bench exercised temporary judicial restraint by choosing not to initiate immediate ex-facie contempt proceedings, largely in light of the Central Bar Association’s proactive disciplinary action in expelling two of the erring advocates for five years.

The Court has directed the noticees to submit their written explanations and solemn undertakings within two weeks, while permitting multiple public interest impleadment applications from the legal fraternity ahead of the next scheduled hearing on July 27, 2026.

The Division Bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice Rajeev Bharti observed, "Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, particularly the fact that the office bearers of Central Bar Association have taken action against two erring Advocates, therefore, at this stage, instead of initiating ex-facie criminal contempt proceedings against the office bearers of both the Bar Associations and the learned Advocates, who were indulged in illegal and unauthorized activities creating chaos and disturbance in the court premises abstaining the judicial work, notices are issued to the office bearers of both the Bar Associations as well as Sri Uttam Tripathi, Advocate (supra), Sri Himanshu Mishra, Advocate (supra) and Sri Brijesh Kumar Yadav, Advocate (supra) to show cause as to why criminal contempt proceedings may not be initiated against them and as to why their misconduct may not be referred to the Bar Council of U.P. for taking necessary action against them."

Advocate Vijai Shankar Tripathi appeared for the Petitioners, while Government Advocate Advocate Aniket Srivastav appeared for the Respondents.

Brief Facts

The Court took cognizance of a Public Interest Litigation concerning widespread disruption of judicial work and illegal encroachments. On 25.05.2026, the Municipal Commissioner of Lucknow Nagar Nigam submitted a report indicating that out of 72 marked illegal encroachments near Swasthya Bhawan, only 14 could be removed. The demolition drive was violently obstructed by a group of advocates, necessitating a request for additional administrative and police assistance.

Concurrently, the Deputy Registrar (Confidential) and the District Judge, Lucknow, submitted independent reports accompanied by pen-drives containing photographic and video evidence. The electronic records revealed that the Central Bar Association, Lucknow, and the Lucknow Bar Association, Lucknow, resolved to completely abstain from judicial work between 18.05.2026 and 20.05.2026 under the nomenclature of ‘Samuhik Avakash’.

Crucially, the video footage depicted office bearers presiding over meetings where an advocate was actively distributing plastic lathis (batons) to the members of the Bar, accompanied by slogans inciting the lawyers to use physical force against the local administration and police personnel to take the law into their own hands.

Subsequently, a vital fact was brought to the Court's notice by the District Judge, Lucknow, that the General Secretary of the Central Bar Association, Lucknow, had issued show-cause notices on 21.05.2026 against three specific advocates: 1. Uttam Tripathi, for distributing plastic lathis; 2. Himanshu Mishra, for delivering inflammatory and baseless speeches on social media to provoke lawyers; and 3. Brijesh Kumar Yadav, for making irresponsible, personal comments against the Administrative Judge of Lucknow.

Following their explanations, the Central Bar Association issued an expulsion letter dated 04.06.2026, expelling Sri Uttam Tripathi and Sri Brijesh Kumar Yadav from the primary membership of the Association for a period of five years.

Contentions of the Parties

The Lucknow Nagar Nigam contended that the civic body was diligently executing the structural compliance orders passed by the High Court. It was argued that the law enforcement machinery and municipal staff faced unlawful hindrances, threats, and physical obstructions directly from the protesting advocates on the spot, which entirely stalled the anti-encroachment drive. Further, the learned Additional Government Advocate (AGA) submitted that the State would apprise the Court regarding the progressive outcome of the criminal investigation by the next date of listing.

The office bearers of various Bar Associations appeared before the Court. While individual grievances regarding procedural or administrative hardships were subtly raised as the historical genesis for such protests, the Bar leadership sought to address the escalating friction between the legal fraternity and the local administration.

Observations of the Court

The Court observed that it is a well-settled position of law that lawyers have absolutely no right to go on strike, call for a boycott, or resort to token strikes under the guise of 'Samuhik Avakash'. The Bench heavily relied upon the landmark Constitution Bench ruling in Ex. Captain Harish Uppal v. Union of India (2003) and subsequent precedents like District Bar Association, Dehradun v. Ishwar Shandilya (2020), reiterating that such disruptions amount to professional misconduct and constitute an ex-facie act of criminal contempt.

The Court noted that the right to speedy justice is an integral facet of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The Bench observed that the illegal abstinence from work by the corporate body of lawyers caused severe prejudice and monetary loss to poor litigants and witnesses who travelled long distances only to find the courts non-functional. The Court explicitly ruled that the right to strike cannot be justified or shielded under the garb of freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) if it tramples upon the rights of the public at large.

The Court expressed deep anguish and alarm over the video evidence showing the distribution of plastic lathis within the bar premises. It was observed that the advocates were fully aware of the previous prohibiting circulars distributed by the Registrar General on 07.09.2024. Despite clear judicial mandates declaring strikes as criminal contempt, the advocates knowingly violated the law, weaponized their protest, and open-endedly threatened the state machinery, which severely threatened the entire edifice of the administration of justice.

Taking structural note of the subsequent developments, the Court observed that since the office bearers of the Central Bar Association had proactively initiated internal disciplinary action by expelling two of the erring advocates, the Court would show temporary judicial restraint.

"Notably, in the present case, the Advocates, who were very well aware about the directions being issued by the Apex Court and this Court, which have been circulated by the Registrar General of this Court through concerned District Judges that the Advocates may not go on strike or boycott the courts/ judicial proceedings, but the Advocates of Central Bar Association, Lucknow and Lucknow Bar Association, Lucknow went on strike/boycott the court proceedings, one Advocate distributed plastic Lathies to the Advocates in a house meeting of the Advocates in the presence of their office bearers uttering slogans that the Advocates shall now handle the administration by means of these Lathies using force upon them (on administration and police)", the Court observed.

Consequently, instead of immediately initiating ex-facie criminal contempt proceedings against the office bearers and the disruptive advocates, the Court deemed it fit to issue show-cause notices to the office bearers of both Bar Associations, as well as to Uttam Tripathi, Himanshu Mishra, and Brijesh Kumar Yadav.

The notices were ordered to be served through the General Secretary of the Central Bar Association, directing the said advocates to submit their written explanations within two weeks.

The Court ordered that their replies must be supported by an affidavit containing a solemn undertaking to faithfully follow the dictums of the Apex Court and maintain exemplary conduct in the interest of the institution. The Bench clarified that any final or appropriate orders would be contingent upon reviewing these explanations and undertakings.

As the underlying matter is a Public Interest Litigation directly impacting the public at large, the Court observed that members of the Bar should be freely permitted to file impleadment or intervention applications. The registry was directed to list the matter for final orders.

Cause Title: Anuradha Singh and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. [Criminal Writ-Public Interest Litigation No. 4 of 2026]

Appearances:

Petitioners: Advocate Vijai Shankar Tripathi, Advocate Bal Keshwar Srivastava, Advocate Kuldeep Verma, Advocate Umesh Singh.

Respondents: Government Advocate G.A., Advocate Aniket Srivastav, Advocate Bal Keshwar Srivastava, Advocate Jyotiresh Pandey, Advocate Mrs.suniti Sachan, Advocate Sarvesh Kumar Pandey, Advocate Shailendra Singh Chauhan.

Click here to read/download the Order