Allahabad High Court Directs Bar Council To Act Against Advocates Accused Of Heinous Offences; Orders Transfer Of Such Cases Outside Home Districts

The Court ordered transfer of such criminal cases outside the advocates’ home districts, directed information-sharing with the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh, called for disciplinary action, and issued verification-related directions concerning advocates found to have forged qualifications.

The Court was hearing a petition under Article 227 arising from the dismissal of a complaint seeking the summoning of police officers. During the proceedings, the Court called for details from police authorities, prosecution authorities, the Registrar of Firms, Societies & Chits and the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh, which led it to examine the wider issue of criminal cases and forged enrollments involving advocates in the State.

A Bench of Justice Vinod Diwakar, while issuing directions under Article 227 read with Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 447 of the BNSS, 2023, held that “In view of the foregoing, and in light of the gravity of the situation disclosed by the material on record, this Court is of the firm opinion that the continuation in practice of advocates who are accused in criminal cases involving heinous offences (the offences in which a sentence of more than 7 years have been prescribed, except matrimonial and other incidental family disputes- both criminal and civil) poses a clear threat, and presents a serious danger to the administration of justice, to the litigants who appear before the courts of this State, and to the public at large. The suspension of the enrollment of such advocates pending the conclusion of the criminal trials against them is not a punitive measure, but a necessary and proportionate regulatory intervention in the larger public interest and to preserve the integrity of the administration of justice.”

Advocate Kamaluddin Khan appeared for the petitioner, while G.A. Ashok Kumar Tiwari appeared for the respondents.

Background

The petition arose from a complaint filed by the petitioner against police personnel alleging defamation in relation to proceedings under Section 82 CrPC. The complaint was dismissed by the Magistrate, and the revisional court affirmed that order. The petitioner then approached the High Court.

At the admission stage, the Court directed the petitioner to place on record details of criminal cases against him, the status of investigation and trial, and his Bar Council enrollment certificate. The Court later called for broader information from police and institutional authorities concerning criminal cases registered against advocates, disciplinary action by the Bar Council, and verification of credentials.

The material placed before the Court included details of criminal cases against advocates across districts, the petitioner’s own antecedents, affidavits from police authorities, material from the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh regarding advocates with forged qualifications, and information concerning Bar Associations registered in Uttar Pradesh.

Court’s Observations

The Court began by observing that the case had moved beyond the individual grievance after institutional material came on record. It noted that the police data indicated a considerable number of criminal cases against advocates, while disciplinary proceedings by the Bar Council were limited.

The Court observed: “A perusal of the said material discloses a disquieting state of affairs- while the data furnished by the police authorities reflects that a considerable number of criminal cases stand registered against advocates across various districts, the disciplinary proceedings initiated by the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh are conspicuously limited to only a handful of advocates, suggesting that the institutional mechanism for internal regulation and discipline within the Bar has remained largely dormant and has not kept pace with the gravity and volume of the complaints and cases unreported.”

The Court also referred to material concerning Bar Associations and expressed concern that some professional bodies had allegedly failed to take remedial steps against members with criminal antecedents or those using the profession as a shield.

On the data placed before it, the Court recorded that out of 5,37,921 advocates on the roll of the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh, the active strength stood at 5,14,439. It further noted that 4,157 advocates were facing 5,056 criminal cases, while 105 advocates had allegedly secured enrollment on fake or forged educational qualifications.

The Court stated: “It has emerged from the record that out of a total enrolled strength of 5,37,921 advocates on the roll of the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh, as on date, the net active strength, after excluding deceased, surrendered, and transferred advocates, stands at 5,14,439. Of these, as many as 4,157 advocates are facing a staggering total of 5,056 criminal cases and are accused in multiple cases involving heinous offences.”

The Court added that the Certificate of Practice verification exercise had revealed fake degrees across different educational stages and enrollment years, and that the Bar Council had acknowledged that no police verification of character or criminal antecedents was undertaken during issuance of Certificates of Practice.

The Court examined the relationship between the disciplinary powers of the Bar Council and the High Court’s constitutional control over the administration of justice. It relied on R.K. Anand v. Registrar, Delhi High Court (2009), Mahipal Singh Rana v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2016), and Pravin C. Shah v. K.A. Mohd. Ali (2001), Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal v. Union of India (2003) and Ajay Vijh v. Indian Banks Association (2026).

The Court held that Bar Council discipline and court control over appearance before courts operate in distinct fields. It reasoned that an advocate has no absolute right to appear in court and that such a right is subject to conditions imposed in the interest of justice.

The Court noted: “A conjoint reading of Article 145 of the Constitution and Section 34 of the Advocates Act, 1961 makes it manifestly clear that an Advocate has no absolute right to appear in a court; the right to appear and conduct cases is always subject to such conditions as the court may impose in the interest of the administration of justice.”

The Court also found that the High Court, as constitutional guardian of the district judiciary, could not remain passive where an advocate’s conduct affected the purity of court proceedings.

The Court reasoned that criminal trials involving advocates in their home districts may be affected by professional and social influence over witnesses, complainants, police officials, court staff and even junior judicial officers. It therefore considered necessary to insulate such trials.

The Court observed: “The foremost difficulty in proceeding with these cases before the concerned district courts is the professional and social influence that advocates, as officers of the court, exercise within their home district. This influence- over witnesses, complainants, police officials, court staff, and in some cases junior judicial officers- poses a serious impediment to a fair trial and to substantial progress in the proceedings. The principle that justice must not only be done but must manifestly appear to be done demands that these proceedings be insulated from such influence.”

To address this concern, the Court directed the Registrar General to issue a notification within 30 days to transfer cases involving advocates accused in heinous offences from their home districts to designated transferee districts. The Court evolved principles under which cases would be transferred to geographically proximate but professionally insulated districts, ordinarily within 100 km, and the mechanism would operate reciprocally to avoid overloading any district.

The Court directed that the transfer would apply to cases involving offences punishable with more than seven years, except matrimonial and incidental family disputes, whether criminal or civil. It also directed that the pilot arrangement would initially operate for five years.

The Court stated: “All such cases, irrespective of the stage of trial, shall be transferred from the courts of the home district (including District Courts, CJM/ACJM courts, JMFC courts, and Gram Nyayalayas) to the courts of the designated Transferee District as per the table given above.”

The Court further directed transferee courts not to grant personal exemption as a matter of course and required District Judges to supervise such applications. Repeated exemption applications could lead to forfeiture of bail bonds, custody and measures to conclude the trial expeditiously.

The Court created a reporting mechanism requiring the Commissioner of Police or SSP of each district to ensure immediate intimation to the District Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate upon registration of an FIR against an advocate and upon filing of the final report or charge-sheet. Copies were also directed to be sent to the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh.

Judicial officers who encounter cases involving advocates during judicial work were directed to inform the District Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate. The Director General of Police was directed to forward details contained in affidavits filed before the Court to the District Judges concerned and to the Bar Council.

The Court directed the Secretary, Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh, to take immediate steps to ensure registration of FIRs against each of the 105 advocates whose degrees were found forged during verification. A compliance report was directed within 30 days.

The Bar Council was also directed to initiate disciplinary proceedings against advocates arrayed as accused in FIRs and charge-sheeted in heinous crimes, to assess whether their conduct amounts to professional or other misconduct, and if prima facie satisfied, to suspend the licence to practise during disciplinary proceedings.

The Court clarified that suspension during inquiry is not punishment but a measure to ensure a fair process.

The Court observed: “Advocates who are habitual offenders and are involved in offences repeatedly cannot, prima facie, be said to bear a conduct that is 'morally good'. Bearing good character is a mandatory requirement for a law graduate to enrol as an Advocate. Therefore, in respect of the aforesaid class of Advocates, the Bar Council is under an onerous duty to initiate disciplinary proceedings and to suspend their licence to practise during the pendency of such disciplinary proceedings.”

The Court also directed that suspended advocates and advocates facing heinous criminal cases shall not be permitted to appear, act or plead before any court or tribunal in Uttar Pradesh until the conclusion of disciplinary proceedings or trial, while clarifying that they may enter court premises for proceedings in which they are personally parties or accused.

To prevent prejudice to litigants, trial courts and transferee courts were directed to grant a reasonable opportunity to engage new counsel, and where required, the District Legal Services Authority was directed to provide competent legal aid counsel.

The Court directed monthly meetings of District Judges, District Magistrates and Commissioners of Police/SSPs to implement the order, with minutes forwarded to the Registrar (Compliance) for three months. The officers were made personally accountable for compliance.

The Court also issued recommendations to the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh, including a comprehensive audit of the entire roll, show-cause notices to advocates without Certificates of Practice, mandatory police verification before enrollment, digital verification of degrees through the National Academic Depository and DigiLocker, annual affidavits disclosing criminal cases, creation of a dedicated disciplinary tribunal, and possible amendments to Sections 24 and 26A of the Advocates Act, 1961.

In its concluding observations, the Court stated: “What emerges from a holistic reading of all the material is not merely an administrative failure but a profound institutional and moral crisis. The legal profession- whose primary obligation is to uphold the rule of law and assist the administration of justice- has in Uttar Pradesh been infiltrated by elements antithetical to everything it stands for: gangsters, mafias, and individuals, who never acquired the educational qualifications that the law requires.”

After issuing the institutional directions, the Court turned to the petitioner’s individual case. It held that the police officers had acted in execution of a court order under Section 82 CrPC against the petitioner’s brother, and that the courts below had not committed any jurisdictional or legal error in dismissing the complaint.

The Court found that the process was carried out in discharge of public duty and that a sanction under Section 197 CrPC was attracted. It also held that revisional jurisdiction is limited and no illegality was apparent in the impugned orders.

Conclusion

The High Court dismissed the petition, subject to the directions, recommendations and observations issued in the judgment. It directed the Registrar General to preserve the entire court record and ordered circulation of the judgment to all District Judges in Uttar Pradesh, the Chief Secretary, Director General of Police, Secretary of the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh and Secretary of the Bar Council of India.

A copy was also directed to be sent to the Law Commission of India and the Legislative Department, Ministry of Law and Justice.

Cause Title: Mohammad Kafeel v. State of U.P. and Another

Appearances

Petitioner: Advocate Kamaluddin Khan

Respondents: Ashok Kumar Tiwari, G.A., with Advocates Mohd. Asim Zulfiquar, Sanjay Prakash Tiwari and Siddharth Chaudhary

Click here to read/download Judgment