The Allahabad High Court expressed its strong disapproval of the resolution passed by the Bahraich District Bar Association prohibiting its members from representing accused parties in cases where an advocate is the complainant.

The Court made the observation in an application filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C seeking quashing of non-bailable warrant as well as the entire criminal proceedings of the criminal case under Sections 323, 504, 506, 427 and 452 of IPC.

The Bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi held, “The act of the complainant Advocate in putting pressure on Sri. Babu Ram Tiwari, who has been engaged by the applicants to seek their release on bail, and of the District Bar Association in passing a mandate restraining Advocates in general from appearing in any matter against any Advocate, is not commensurate with the noble conduct expected from any Advocate, besides being violative of the provisions contained in the above referred Rules 11 and 15”. The Court referred to the provisions of the Bar Council of India Rules.

The Court issued notice to the President and General Secretary of the District Bar Association, to place their version regarding the claim of the complainant that a resolution has been passed by the District Bar Association that no advocate would appear in a case on behalf of the accused persons in which some advocates are involved from the other side.

The Complainant filed a case against the applicants, stating that he is an advocate practicing in Civil Court, Bahraich and that the accused person has illegally taken into possession some land forming a part of a lane and a sehan and when the complainant and his father objected against it, the accused persons opposed them, entered their house, beat them and damaged some household goods.

While hearing the petition the Court was informed that the complainant wrote a letter to the District Bar Association, wherein he has written that some members are helping the accused persons and they want to file an application for their release on bail.

Later, the District Bar Association mandated the members in its general body meeting that in any matter in which an advocate is involved, no other advocate will appear on behalf of the accused person and will not file his vakalatnama on his behalf.

Consequently, the Court called the conduct of the Complainant and that of the District Bar Association very disturbing. Further, stressing that the profession of Advocacy has long been considered a noble profession and it is expected that advocates shall conduct themselves in a noble manner.

Considering this, the Court issued a notice seeking responses in this regard to the state government, the Complainant, the President, and the General Secretary of the District Bar Association. Additionally, as an interim measure, the Court stayed the execution of the non-bailable warrant and the entire criminal proceedings against the applicant accused till the next date of hearing.

Cause Title - Virendra Kumar And Others vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko. And Another.


Applicant: Advocate Pankaj Kumar Shukla

Opposite Party: G.A.

Click here to read/download Order