Criminal Antecedents In Bar Pose Threat To Rule Of Law: Allahabad High Court Seeks Details Of Cases Pending Against Advocates In UP

A bench of Justice Vinod Diwakar sought the details while observing that the functioning of the District Judiciary has been "adversely affected" by the conduct of certain advocates with criminal antecedents.

The Court noted with concern that in many districts, advocates facing serious criminal charges are not only practicing but are occupying positions of authority within the respective District Bar Associations.

The bench observed thus while hearing a petition filed by one Mohammad Kafeel, a practicing advocate registered with the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh since 2022 and a life-time member of the District Bar Association, Etawah.

He had approached the HC challenging an order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Etawah, which had dismissed his plea to summon police officers in a complaint case.

He had essentially alleged that on November 13, 2025, he was assaulted, threatened and punched by a police constable at an egg stall near the railway station. However, the State's counsel, on the other hand, filed a compliance affidavit which revealed that the petitioner was himself involved in a series of criminal cases including charges under the U.P. Gangsters Act, forgery, extortion and criminal conspiracy.

Furthermore, the State's affidavit also disclosed that the petitioner's five brothers are named in dozens of cases ranging from the Cow Slaughter Act and Public Gambling Act to heinous offenses under the POCSO Act and charges of attempt to murder.

The Court noted that it stands admitted that the petitioner is implicated in criminal cases and that all his brothers are identified as 'hardened' criminals.

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 held that such situations, even if infrequent, pose a potential threat to the rule of law. It added judicial superintendence must be exercised effectively to prevent a miscarriage of justice as as to ensure that the faith of the common citizen in the system remains unshaken.

The Court was also of the view that it is necessary to assess whether an advocate's involvement in criminal proceedings bears upon their professional integrity and whether they are capable of discharging duties in a "fair and credible manner".

Against this backdrop, to arrive at a logical conclusion without expressing an opinion on the merits of the present case, the HC found it appropriate to call for relevant information regarding the broader issue.

Thus, the Court has directed all Commissioners, SSPs and SPs through the DGP to submit the data regarding the pending criminal cases against advocates across the state, in a tabular format. The information must include:

• Date of registration of FIR with Crime Numbers and penal provisions;
• Name of the police station concerned;
• Present status of investigation and date of conclusion, if applicable;
• Date of filing of charge-sheet and framing of charges;
• Details of prosecution witnesses examined and the current status of the trial.

The Court clarified that the officers are at liberty to furnish additional information necessary to achieve the objective of protecting the justice system, even allowing for submission in a "sealed cover" if required.

The High Court further warned that any 'lackadaisical' approach by the administration shall be viewed seriously. The Registrar (Compliance) has been directed to communicate the order forthwith to the relevant authorities, including the Additional Chief Secretary (Home).

The matter is listed next on December 9.