UP Bar Council To Suspend Licenses Of 'History-Sheeter' Advocates, High Court Told; SHOs Directed To Certify No Cases Concealed

The submission was made before a bench of Justice Vinod Diwakar on December 15 during the hearing of a petition filed by advocate Mohammad Kafeel, who is facing a series of criminal cases, including charges under the UP Gangsters Act, forgery, extortion and criminal conspiracy.

Briefly put, Kafeel had moved the HC by filing a plea under Article 227 to challenge an order by the Additional Sessions Judge, Etawah, which dismissed his complaint against a police constable.

Though he alleged he was assaulted and punched by the constable near a railway, on November 26, 2025, the State counsel apprised the bench about his own antecedents.

The Court had then sought the statewide data on criminal cases pending against advocates enrolled with the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh.

During the proceedings, Advocate Ashok Kumar Tiwari, counsel for the Bar Council of UP, placed on record a Resolution of the council where a "unanimous decision" was taken to suspend the License of Practice of advocates against whom:

• The police have opened history sheets.
• There are records listing them as gangsters (under the U.P. Gangsters Act).

The Bar Council also submitted a list of advocates against whom disciplinary proceedings are currently pending.

The Court further granted the Council time to produce a pen drive containing details of all advocates who have been issued Certificates of Practice, for cross-reference.

Furthermore, the Court also took on record the State Government's compliance affidavit with a district-wise list of cases against lawyers.

However, to ensure absolute accuracy, Justice Diwakar ordered that all Station House Officers (SHOs), through their respective Senior Superintendents of Police (SSPs), must file a personal undertaking to certify three specific points:

1. That the complete list of cases against advocates has been furnished to the High Court.
2. That "nothing material has been concealed."
3. That no other case is pending against any advocate in their police station except those disclosed.

The Court directed that a fresh list be furnished "police station-wise".

For context, during the hearing last month, the HC observed that certain criminal elements were occupying positions of authority in Bar Associations.

Justice Diwakar had also remarked that advocates with criminal backgrounds pose a "potential threat to the rule of law" and may "improperly exert influence over police authorities".

Justice Diwakar said that while every individual is presumed innocent until convicted, an advocate's antecedents "undeniably bear upon both personal and professional integrity."

The Court also remarked that the legal system derives its strength not merely from statutory provisions but from the "moral legitimacy that flows from public confidence in its fairness and integrity."

Further, in a significant observation regarding the psychology of crime and professional ethics, the Court observed thus:

"Crime originates in thought, and thought influences conduct; therefore, when individuals facing serious criminal allegations hold positions of influence within the legal system, there exists a legitimate concern that they may improperly exert influence over police authorities and judicial processes while operating under the cloak of professional legitimacy."

The Court had then directed the DGP to compile statewide data and subsequently impleaded the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh in the case to assist in the "cleansing" process.