Lucknow Court Violence | High Court Orders IB Inquiry Into 4 Accused Advocates, Says It's Time To Identify 'Black Sheep' In Bar

The Allahabad High Court on Tuesday ordered a discreet inquiry by the Intelligence Bureau (IB) into the antecedents and activities of 4 advocates accused of assaulting a litigant inside the Lucknow district court premises on July 21. The Court also directed them to disclose their Income Tax Returns (ITR) of the last 10 years, assets, businesses and property transactions.

The directions came in the Court's suo motu proceedings arising out of the July 21 violence inside the Lucknow district court campus, where a litigant, Mohd. Shakir, was allegedly assaulted by a group of advocates.

A Bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Manjive Shukla observed that it was necessary to identify the "black sheep" within the legal fraternity while ensuring that innocent and sincere lawyers should not be harassed and ill-treated.

"We need to identify the black sheep and make them accountable at the earliest…Those who are adamant to vitiate the atmosphere within the campus or outside have to be dealt with strictly," the Bench observed.

The Court, however, added that its order should not be construed as a basis for harassment of "any innocent and well-meaning Advocate" who also deserves to be protected against the might of a handful of aggressive Advocates.

The Court directed the local office of the Intelligence Bureau at Lucknow, headed by a Joint Director, to conduct a discreet inquiry into the antecedents and activities of advocates Saurabh Kumar Verma, Harshit Pandey, Yash Pandey and Abhay Pratap Verma, and submit its report in a sealed cover before the Court.

In addition, the Bench ordered the 4 named advocates to file copies of their Income Tax Returns for the past ten years, furnish details of their assets, businesses and living family members, and disclose any sale, lease or gift of property made by them or their family members during the last 5 years.

The Court observed that these disclosures were necessary to assess their activities and indicated that the inquiry into their assets could be expanded in future if required.

Explaining the rationale behind these directions, the Bench referred to allegations made in the present proceedings as well as earlier connected cases that certain advocates had amassed substantial wealth in a short span through illegal means or activities unrelated to the legal profession.

The Court noted that the allegations against some advocates created a strong suspicion that they were engaged in activities other than the legal profession, possibly property dealing and property grabbing.

The Bench also took note of the State's submission that Advocate Verma is facing 8 criminal cases in different police stations in Lucknow. It observed that although it was not recording any conclusive opinion regarding his guilt in those cases, it was "a moot point as to how and why so many criminal cases are lodged against an Advocate".

The Court also noted that Advocate Pandey was stated to be facing one criminal case.

The bench, however, clarified that it was not recording any conclusive finding against any advocate but considered it necessary to examine their financial status in view of the allegations.

The Bench further directed the advocates to furnish details of all civil cases in which they were either parties or appeared as counsel, observing that this was necessary because of allegations that they indulged in land and property grabbing by using court proceedings.

Making significant observations on the situation prevailing in the Lucknow district courts, the High Court noted that several bar members had indicated that there are groups of lawyers who act like goons and use their status as Advocates and their influence in the district court premises to grab property.

“In this process, they fabricate documents, initiate suit proceedings to facilitate aforesaid grabbing of property. They pressurize the courts also. They prevent the parties in a suit who are against them from putting in appearance through an Advocate and contesting the matter to defend their rights thereby compromising the entire justice delivery system,” the bench observed.

The Bench noted that although the overwhelming majority of advocates were sincere and committed to the cause of justice, "it is these few black sheep who are more vocal, assertive and dominant".

The Court remarked that its earlier orders issuing warnings to such errant advocates had failed to produce the desired effect. The bench said that "the time for harsh words appears to be over" and "it is now time for action" by the police and all stakeholders.

The Court also referred to its earlier observations regarding a possible nexus between certain lawyers, police officials and other influential persons, describing restoration of sanctity and public confidence in judicial proceedings as "the million dollar question".

The High Court recorded that, prima facie, the material before it disclosed "gross professional misconduct, abuse of process of law, gross interference with due course of judicial proceedings, interference and obstruction in the administration of justice" by the advocates named in its order.

Considering the CCTV footage, the District Judge's report, the Police Commissioner's report and the gravity of the allegations, the Bench restrained the named 4 advocates from entering any court premises in Lucknow district until the next date of hearing.

They have, however, been permitted to appear in the present proceedings or any criminal case in accordance with law.

Background

The suo motu proceedings were initiated concerning the alleged assault on three Delhi-based advocates, including two women lawyers, and their client inside the Lucknow District Court premises (on July 21).

After examining CCTV footage and the District Judge's report regarding the matter, the High Court observed that the 4 identified advocates were seen assaulting the litigant, while directing the police and the District Judge to identify all other advocates who were allegedly part of the mob.

The Court further directed the District Judge and the police authorities to identify all other advocates who were allegedly part of the mob, noting that the FIR also names 10-20 unknown male and female advocates.

The Bench also noted that several advocates had alleged the existence of groups operating within the district court who allegedly engaged in property grabbing and influenced judicial proceedings through intimidation.

For the uninitiated, the matter had come up before the Lucknow Bench in a special sitting at 7 PM on Tuesday on an application moved by Delhi-based advocates Abhipsa Mohanty, Komal Agarwal and Ashutosh Srivastava, who alleged that they were assaulted and prevented from appearing in a civil suit by Advocate Saurabh Kumar Verma and his associates inside the Lucknow District Court on July 21.

According to the application, the advocates had gone to file a vakalatnama in a civil suit when they were allegedly prevented from appearing by Advocate Saurabh Kumar Verma and his associates.

The applicants alleged that not only were they manhandled but their client Mohd Shakir was also badly beaten up and threatened by saying "vakil ke against case karega tu" (you will file a case against an advocate).

They further alleged that when they attempted to protect their client, they too were assaulted. One of the applicants, Advocate Ashutosh Srivastava, alleged that he was punched in the stomach and chest while trying to protect the client.

The application further alleged that Advocate Verma threatened them by saying "tum mere against kaise case le liye" (How dare you take up a case against me) and "tum isme mat pado, warna acha nahi hoga" (Stay out of this, or it won't end well for you, while all the applicants were abused and humiliated).

The applicants further claimed that when they attempted to bring the incident to the notice of the District Judge, Advocate Verma allegedly started shouting at them and exhorted his women associates to assault them.

The special hearing had been convened after one of the two women advocate-applicants urgently mentioned the matter before a Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant earlier on Tuesday, alleging that she and her client had been assaulted inside the Lucknow District Court and that a Bar Association officebearer was preventing them from appearing in the matter.