Lawyers Who Vandalised Courtroom No. 49 of the Allahabad High Court on October 28 should face an FIR and criminal contempt proceedings, a Division Bench has recommended, rejecting the Bar Association’s account of the incident as “false imputations”.
Prayagraj: The Allahabad High Court has referred to the Chief Justice a recommendation that FIRs be registered against lawyers who ransacked a courtroom and allegedly assaulted a government counsel on October 28, 2026, and that criminal contempt proceedings be initiated against them before an appropriate bench [In Re: Commission of Criminal Contempt and Criminal Offences by Lawyers in Court No. 49 on 28.10.2026].
The order, passed in chambers on October 29, 2026, was authored by Justice Ajay Bhanot, sitting with Justice Divesh Chandra Samant. It runs to 29 pages.
How the dispute began
The trouble traced back to an incident in the court on October 27. In a letter dated that day, the newly elected office bearers of the Allahabad High Court Bar Association alleged that a lawyer had been made to apologise to a Superintendent of Police after objecting to the officer sitting in a seat usually used by advocates. The Bar body also alleged that the judge threatened to send the lawyer to jail and ridiculed a senior counsel, and warned that its members would boycott the court if no action was taken.
The Bench rejected that account. It recorded that the counsel was not forced to apologise and instead chose to express regret, and called the claim about an order to send him to jail “a total falsehood and a deliberate one”, noting that no such order was dictated or exists on record. It also recorded Senior Advocate V.P. Srivastava‘s statement that he had not been humiliated.
What the Court recorded about October 28
According to the order, a group of lawyers gathered in the courtroom on the morning of October 28, shouting slogans. The Bench recorded that the lawyers ransacked the courtroom, destroyed furniture and assaulted government counsel and court staff. It described the scene in strong terms:
“The aggressive and unruly group of lawyers were looking to provoke an untoward incident in the Court. The menacing gestures and the deafening uproar raised by the lawyers made it difficult to believe that a constitutional court was facing learned members of the Bar and not confronting a riotous mob hell-bent on violence.”
The order records that after the judges rose, Additional Government Advocate Paritosh Kumar Malviya came into their chambers with a swollen face, and told them that a group of lawyers had assaulted him inside the courtroom and threatened him for defending the State.
The Bar Association’s letter and social media
The Bench found a link between the October 27 letter and the violence that followed:
“A live nexus between the false imputations and provocative language used in the aforesaid letter dated 27.10.2026 issued by Dr. C.P. Upadhyay, Senior Advocate, President elect and Shri Santosh Kumar Mishra, General Secretary elect of the Allahabad High Court Bar Association and the violence and disruption of proceedings which occurred in the Court today can be discerned.”
It said social media had erupted with false news about the incident, and warned of the damage such campaigns do to judges:
“The reputations of judges who discharge their judicial functions are built over a lifetime in the profession, and falsehoods on social media can destroy them irreparably in a matter of seconds. There is no justice for judges who are prey to such social media propaganda.”
No appeasement of violence
The Court said it could not overlook the incident in the name of Bar and Bench harmony:
“Appeasement of violence in Court will make the Courts vulnerable to blackmail and not prevent recurrence of violence. Violence is not sated by appeasement. Violence can be curbed by bringing the perpetrators to justice and by establishing the deterrence of law.”
“Anarchy is not a species of dissent. Freedom of speech at the Bar is not the freedom to slander the Bench.”
The recommendations
Holding that criminal contempt proceedings were prima facie liable to be drawn, the Bench referred the matter to the Chief Justice for placing before the appropriate bench. It recommended that the Registrar General be directed to ensure registration of an FIR against the lawyers concerned for incitement to violence, conspiracy to commit violence, perpetration of violence and vandalism in court, and any other offences made out; to register an FIR against those who put out false social media posts about the incidents of October 27 and 28; and to have those posts blocked and deleted. The Registrar General’s report dated October 28 is to be kept in a sealed cover.
The Bench also placed on record its appreciation of Senior Counsel V.P. Srivastava and Additional Government Advocates Paritosh Kumar Malviya, Sanjeev Pandey, Pradeep Jaiswar, Shehnawaz Khan and Sandeep Tripathi, and stressed the State’s duty to protect its law officers.
The order is a reference and a set of recommendations. No lawyer has yet been charged or held guilty of contempt or any offence; the findings on individual conduct will be tested in the proceedings that follow, and the Bar Association’s version of the October 27 events remains its stated position.
Why the order matters
The order marks a sharp escalation in a week-long standoff between a section of the Allahabad Bar and the Bench. Rather than leaving the courtroom violence to be smoothed over through Bar and Bench consultations, the judges chose to set out their version of events on record, name the letter they say fuelled the disruption, and push for both criminal and contempt action.
It also reflects a growing judicial concern with social media campaigns about court proceedings. By recommending an FIR and takedowns over posts it calls false, the Bench has signalled that online narratives targeting judges will be treated as a threat to the administration of justice, while the final call on prosecution now rests with the Chief Justice and the bench that takes up the contempt reference.
Case Title: In Re: Commission of Criminal Contempt and Criminal Offences by Lawyers in Court No. 49 on 28.10.2026
Bench: Justice Ajay Bhanot and Justice Divesh Chandra Samant, Allahabad High Court (in chamber)
Date of Order: October 29, 2026