Lucknow Court Violence | UP Police Intelligence Dept, Not IB, To Conduct Discreet Inquiry Into Advocates; High Court Modifies Order
The Allahabad High Court on Wednesday modified its earlier order in the suo moto Lucknow Court violence case, directing the Intelligence Department of the Uttar Pradesh Police, instead of the Intelligence Bureau (IB), to conduct the discreet inquiry into the antecedents and activities of advocates against whom allegations have been made.
A Bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Manjive Shukla passed the order in the suo motu proceedings concerning the July 21, 2026 incident at the Lucknow District Court.
The order was modified after the Deputy Solicitor General of India, SB Pandey, informed the Court that the work and nature of the Intelligence Bureau were different and that the inquiry directed by the Court was beyond its domain. The Court recorded:
"...the work and nature of the Intelligence Bureau of Government of India is very different and therefore the directions issued in paragraph 43 of our order dated 28.07.2026…would not be able to take exercise as has been ordered…as it would be beyond their domain".
Accepting the submission, the Bench modified its earlier directions in the following terms:
"...instead of the local office of the Intelligence Bureau, it is the Intelligence Department of the U.P. Police, headed by the Director General which shall get the discreet enquiry as ordered therein, conducted".
The Court accordingly directed that the Director General (Intelligence), State of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow be impleaded as an opposite party and directed that the order be communicated to him.
Background: Lucknow Court violence
The proceedings concern the alleged assault of three Delhi-based advocates, including two women lawyers, and their client inside the Lucknow District Court premises on July 21.
The matter had come before the Lucknow Bench in a special sitting after Delhi-based advocates Abhipsa Mohanty, Komal Agarwal and Ashutosh Srivastava alleged that they were assaulted and prevented from appearing in a civil suit by Advocate Saurabh Kumar Verma and his associates.
According to the allegations, the advocates had gone to file a vakalatnama in a civil suit when they were allegedly prevented from appearing. Their client (Mohd. Shakir) was allegedly beaten and threatened, while the advocates alleged that they too were assaulted when they attempted to protect him.
The High Court subsequently initiated suo motu proceedings after considering the District Judge's report, the Police Commissioner's report, video footage and CCTV footage.
The Court had earlier observed that the material prima facie 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.
In its earlier order dated July 28, the Bench had directed a discreet inquiry into the antecedents and activities of four advocates [Saurabh Kumar Verma, Harshit Pandey, Yash Pandey and Abhay Pratap Verma].
The Court had also directed the four advocates to disclose their Income Tax Returns for the past 10 years, details of their assets, businesses and living family members, and details of any sale, lease or gift of property made by them or their family members during the preceding five years.
The Bench had said it was necessary to identify the "black sheep" within the legal fraternity while ensuring that innocent and sincere lawyers were not harassed.
"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 Court has remarked
The Court had, however, clarified that its directions should not become a basis for harassment of "any innocent and well-meaning Advocate".
The Bench had also recorded allegations that certain groups of lawyers "act like goons" and use their status as Advocates and influence within district court premises to grab property.
It was further noted that such persons fabricate documents, initiate suit proceedings to facilitate the aforesaid grabbing of property and they also pressurize the courts.
September 2 order
In the latest order, the High Court also noted that the affidavits and disclosures required from the concerned advocates under its July 28 order have not been filed as yet. The Bench said it would consider this aspect on the next date.
The Court also took on record two counter-affidavits, one filed by the Commissioner of Police and the other by the Deputy Commissioner of Police.
The matter will now come up on September 15, along with connected matters.
Case title: Suo Motu Cognizance Of Incident Dated 21/07/2026 In The Court Premises