PRAYAGRAJ While terming the ruckus created by a section of lawyers as ‘contemptuous’, the Allahabad high court on Wednesday directed its registrar (protocol) to get the CCTV footage and identify the lawyers involved in the incident, so that contempt proceedings could be initiated against them.
This is wholly unjustified. Later, state counsel informed this incident to Justice Ajay Bhanot, who asked the lawyer to say sorry to the police officer. This incident infuriated a section of lawyers as they termed it as an attack on their dignity. The association alleged that, during the proceedings, a police officer holding the rank of superintendent of police was sitting in the row behind the additional government advocate (AGA). It further alleged that, after Justice Bhanot entered the courtroom, the AGA complained about the advocate, following which the judge pointed a finger at him and, in harsh words, ordered that he be sent to jail.
A lawyer present in the court informed that certain advocates were protesting against the unfortunate incident that took place in court no 49 on Tuesday relating to the dignity of advocates. On Monday, an advocate inside court room of court no 49 asked a senior police officer to sit behind and not in the front row as it is for lawyers. On Wednesday, they broke seats of court number 49, where this incident had taken place and after that raised slogans in the corridor of the high court. In a letter dated October 27, 2026, addressed to the chief justice of the Allahabad high court through the registrar general, the newly elected office-bearers of the Bar Association sought appropriate action over the incident stated to have occurred in Justice Bhanot’s court on the same day.
Because some of the advocates have problem with a particular court, they cannot be permitted to raise slogans, shout and disturb other court proceedings and use such words which is in the nature to intimidate the court, taking a serious note of it, the court observed: “Such incident amounts to interference of the court proceedings as poor litigants come to the high court for redressal of their grievances, and merely. Therefore, this court is of the view that such conduct of some advocates is absolutely contempt.
Justice Bhanot had instituted a practice of keeping a separate chair in the next row for a police officer or another senior official who might attend his courtroom, according to the letter. It further stated that an advocate had respectfully asked the officer to sit behind, saying, “Yeh aapki seat nahin hai” (this is not your seat). The letter stated that the AGA rebuked the advocate and said that he would be complaining to the judge. When the advocate sought forgiveness, the judge directed and compelled him to apologise to the police officer, according to the association.
Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal passed the above order when during the time of hearing of a case, some advocates started raising their voice in the corridor outside his court (court no 66), which interrupted court proceedings.
