Allahabad High Court Takes Exception To Protesting Lawyers Blocking Courtroom Entry, Creating Noise Impeding Proceedings

| HC said judicial proceedings cannot be allowed to remain 'paralyzed' on account of lawyers deliberately abstaining from their duties

Update: 2026-11-04 12:18 GMT

Click the Play button to listen to article

Amid the ongoing protests by advocates over the alleged conduct of Justice Ajay Bhanot, the Allahabad High Court on Wednesday took exception to a group of lawyers allegedly blocking the courtroom's entry doors and preventing court staff from entering through the main gate.

The Court observed that judicial proceedings cannot be allowed to remain 'paralyzed' on account of lawyers deliberately abstaining from their duties.

Interestingly, the order was passed by a Division Bench led by Justice Bhanot, who has been at the center of the advocates' protests since October 28. The protests escalated last week, with advocates allegedly resorting to vandalism.

For context, the bench, also comprising Justice Divesh Chandra Samant, recorded that a large number of lawyers gathered outside the courtroom and created noise that impeded court proceedings.

The Bench noted that lawyers prevented court staff from entering the courtroom through the main gate. In view of the situation, the Court said it had asked the staff to enter the courtroom through the door meant for the Judges.

"The Court proceedings cannot stand paralyzed on account of lawyers who are deliberately absenting themselves from duty," the Bench observed.

The observations were made while the Bench was hearing a criminal writ petition challenging an FIR registered against the applicants over allegations of sexual relations on a false promise of marriage, criminal intimidation, rioting, etc. The matter was taken up in the revised call.

The Court noted that no one appeared on behalf of the petitioners to press the writ petition, although the names of their counsel were shown in the cause list. The Assistant Government Advocates were also not present.

Taking note of the absence of the Assistant Government Advocates, the Bench directed the Learned Government Advocate to submit a report explaining the cause for their absence in Court.

On the merits of the case, the Court noted that the FIR recorded that petitioner no. 1 and the first informant were in a consensual relationship and had physical relations. The Court also noticed that there was a property dispute between the parties.

Therefore, until the next date of listing or until the filing of the police report under Section 173 Cr.P.C./193 BNSS, whichever is earlier, the Court stayed the petitioners' arrest.

About the protests at Allahabad High Court

The development follows a protest by advocates over an incident on October 27 in Court No. 49, where Justice Ajay Bhanot was presiding.

The Allahabad High Court Bar Association wrote to Chief Justice Arun Bhansali on October 28, threatening to boycott Justice Bhanot's court while alleging that he had humiliated an advocate during court proceedings and mocked a senior advocate.

According to the Association's letter, an advocate had objected to a police officer occupying a particular seat in the courtroom.

The Association alleged that Justice Bhanot subsequently ordered the advocate to be sent to jail and compelled him to apologize to the officer. It further alleged that the judge mocked senior advocate VP Srivastava.

The letter warned that if no appropriate action is taken, the Allahabad High Court Bar Association would boycott Justice Bhanot's court.

Against this backdrop, advocates staged a protest on Wednesday. According to media reports, some lawyers also hurled furniture inside Justice Bhanot's courtroom.

The protest-related commotion also disrupted proceedings in the adjoining courtroom of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, who took serious note of the incident. He remarked thus:

"Such incident amounts to interference the Court proceedings as poor litigants come to the High Court for redressal of their grievance, and merely because some of the Advocates have problem with particular Court, they cannot be permitted to raise slogans, shout and disturb to other Courts' proceedings and use such words which is in the nature to intimidate the Court. This is wholly unjustified."

Describing the conduct as “absolutely contemptuous,” the Court directed the Registrar (Protocol) to obtain CCTV footage from the camera installed outside Court No. 66 and identify the advocates involved and submit a report on the next date.

Thereafter, a bench of Justice Bhanot and Justice Samant passed an order finding that the acts of lawyers assaulting State law officers, court staff and security personnel and vandalizing a courtroom on October 28 were prima facie criminal contempt.

The Court also requested the Chief Justice to consider issuing directions for the registration of FIRs against the lawyers allegedly involved and persons who circulated false social media posts about the incidents.