The Allahabad High Court has told Young Lawyers to concentrate on their studies and their cases rather than on social media likes, as a section of advocates protesting against Justice Ajay Bhanot kept a neighbouring courtroom from functioning for a third day.
Prayagraj: The Allahabad High Court on Friday, October 30, recorded that some advocates forcibly stopped other lawyers from entering its courtroom, that Additional Government Advocates were taken out of the Court, and that a woman advocate was misbehaved with and prevented from attending her case, and urged young advocates to build their careers instead of chasing social media likes, while adjourning a bail application in which no one could appear for the applicant [Rajesh v. State of U.P.].
Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, sitting in Court No. 66, made the observations in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 7004 of 2026, and asked the newly elected body of the High Court Bar Association to take steps to maintain the dignity of the Court.
The background
Advocates at the High Court have been protesting this week over an incident in the courtroom of Justice Ajay Bhanot, where, according to the protesting lawyers, a lawyer was made to apologise to a Superintendent of Police after objecting to the officer sitting in a seat usually reserved for lawyers. The bar association has alleged that a separate chair was being placed in that courtroom for police and other senior officials, that the judge threatened to jail the lawyer and that another senior counsel was ridiculed. These allegations have not been tested, and the judge’s side of the incident is not part of the order.
The association had warned of a boycott of Justice Ajay Bhanot‘s court if no action was taken. On Wednesday, the protest turned disorderly, with lawyers allegedly damaging furniture in his courtroom. Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, whose courtroom is near that of Justice Ajay Bhanot, has been unable to hear cases since then, and had on Wednesday asked the Registrar (Protocol) to examine CCTV footage outside his courtroom to identify advocates involved in sloganeering, for possible disciplinary and contempt proceedings.
What the Court recorded
When the bail application was called out on the revised list of fresh cases, no one appeared to press it, though it had been mentioned for being taken up out of turn. The Court noted that counsel for the applicant could not appear because certain advocates had forcibly stopped those who wanted to argue their cases.
“During the hearing of this bail application, this Court heard the cries of a lady advocate who wanted to enter the courtroom to attend her case, but she was misbehaved with and forcibly stopped from entering the Court. Such conduct on the part of some advocates is not conducive to the reputation and dignity of the Bar as well as the Court.”
“This Court is of the view that the proceedings of the Court cannot be allowed to be stalled merely because a section of advocates does not want the Court to function, although the majority of advocates want to argue their cases.”
On social media posts
The Court took judicial notice of social media posts by certain young advocates about the functioning of the High Court and of advocates, saying they had been made without thought to how incomplete and twisted information could widen differences between the Bar and the Bench.
“Young advocates should concentrate on their studies as well as on preparing their cases to build their careers instead of concentrating on increasing their social media likes. Young advocates are the future of the High Court. Most of the Judges as well as senior advocates of this Court are trying their best to create a good atmosphere for the future of young lawyers, who in future will become senior advocates as well as Judges of this High Court.”
Dignity of the Court and of the Bar
The Court said advocates command respect in society only because the public trusts the High Court, and that maintaining that trust is a shared duty.
“This Court is also of the view that it is not only the duty of the Judges but also of the advocates to maintain the dignity of the High Court so that public trust in the High Court may remain. If public trust in the High Court gets eroded, then mafias and certain unruly public officials will start harassing advocates, as recently happened in certain districts, which was also highlighted in several newspapers.”
It added that government advocates are also advocates, and that the dignity of advocates includes that of private and government advocates alike.
The directions
The Court expressed the expectation that the newly elected body of the Bar Association, High Court, Allahabad, will consider the issue and take appropriate steps to keep the dignity of the High Court at a high pedestal. In the interest of justice, the bail application was adjourned for the day and listed on November 26, 2026.
Why the order matters
Protests by the Bar over grievances against a judge are not new, but the order puts on record the cost borne by litigants when courtrooms are shut down: a bail applicant whose counsel could not reach the court, and a woman advocate physically kept from her case. The Court framed the issue as one of access to justice, stressing that the majority of advocates who wish to work cannot be held back by a section that does not.
The order also signals that grievances against a judge, whatever their merit, are best taken up through the Bar’s elected body and institutional channels rather than through obstruction or social media campaigns. The underlying complaint about the incident in Justice Ajay Bhanot‘s court remains unaddressed in this order, which deals only with the disruption of proceedings.
Case Title: Rajesh v. State of U.P. [Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 7004 of 2026]
Bench: Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, Allahabad High Court
Date of Order: October 30, 2026
Counsel for Applicant: Ajay Kumar Srivastava, Shahnawaz Akhtar
Counsel for Opposite Party: Government Advocate