The Allahabad High Court has directed the registration of a criminal contempt case against a man after finding that he filed a review petition in the capacity of a party-in-person containing 'contemptuous' language against a sitting Judge of the High Court.

A Bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Kshitij Shailendra passed the direction while considering a review petition filed against the Bench's earlier order dated July 9, 2026, by which a special appeal filed (against Single Judge's order) by the petitioner had been dismissed as not maintainable.

Taking into account the averments made in the review petition by party-in-person Vishram Singh, the Court observed thus:

"The review petition which has been filed by the petitioner and who has been contesting the present proceedings in person, is replete of language qua the learned Single Judge, whose judgement was appealed against and the appeal was dismissed as not maintainable, which is, on face of it, contemptuous".

The Bench then referred to portions of the review petition containing allegations that orders had been passed 'fraudulently', 'illegally' and "without jurisdiction".

The petitioner had also alleged that an order was passed through 'deception' and that non-disclosure of certain statements in the order amounted to deceiving him.

Background of the dispute

The dispute relates to the petitioner's attempt to appear and argue cases on behalf of litigants despite not being an enrolled Advocate.

The issue arose before the Single Judge in September last year after one Sheel Nidhi Jaiswal sought permission to have the petitioner (Vishram Singh) represent and argue his case before the trial court.

The trial court had earlier declined the request on the ground that the petitioner was not an enrolled Advocate.

The petitioner thereafter approached the High Court and claimed to be a “pleader”, seeking permission to appear and argue on behalf of the litigant.

During the proceedings, he stated that he was an engineer by profession and had acquired substantial knowledge of law through self-study.

He claimed to have read and analyzed around 100 Supreme Court judgments and relied upon various constitutional and statutory provisions in support of his plea.

The Single Judge also noted that the petitioner had appeared in several cases before courts in Kanpur as an “attorney” and “pleader”.

At one stage, counsel appearing for the High Court submitted that the petitioner had been appearing in various cases on behalf of clients and sought that he be restrained from appearing in pending as well as fresh matters.

The petitioner subsequently undertook that he would not appear for or on behalf of his clients until disposal of the case. The order was later clarified to permit him to appear in his own cases.

Single Judge's order

On December 11, 2025, Justice Vinod Diwakar dismissed the petition while holding that the petitioner “cannot appear and plead as pleader or attorney for and on behalf of litigants as a matter of right in defiance of provisions of the Advocates Act, 1961”.

Furthermore, the Court had termed the situation as "unfortunate and regrettable" that the petitioner, despite not having any formal legal education or a proper understanding of law, had continued to argue in the Courts.

"Half-baked knowledge of law is akin to a self-inflicted injury, not only to himself but also to the litigants whom he represents, and it ultimately results in a casualty of justice", the bench had remarked.

The bench had also added that the petitioner was not permitted to take up the legal profession without having complied with the terms of Chapter-III of the Advocates Act, 1961

Read more about the Single Judge's order here : Advocates Act | Only Enrolled Advocates Can Practise Law; Power Of Attorney Holders Can't Plead As A Matter Of Right: Allahabad HC

Special Appeal dismissed as not maintainable

Though the petitioner subsequently challenged the Single Judge's order through a Special Appeal, the same was dismissed by a Division Bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Kshitij Shailendra on July 9, 2026, holding that it was not maintainable, since the Single Judge had exercised jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution.

In its order, the Bench had noted that the Single Judge had passed an exhaustive 48-page, 78-paragraph order and relied upon Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952, as well as the Full Bench judgment in Sheet Gupta v. State of U.P.

The special appeal was accordingly dismissed as not maintainable.

Following the dismissal of the special appeal, the petitioner filed the present review petition.

However, the Division Bench found that the language used against the Single Judge "amounts to criminal contempt" and that the petitioner had attempted to "lower down the dignity of this Court". The bench observed thus:

"In the circumstances of the case, wherein the petitioner in person, has attempted to lower down the dignity of this Court by use of language, as indicated hereinbefore, which amounts to criminal contempt…"

The Registry was accordingly directed to register the matter as a criminal contempt petition and place it before the appropriate Bench.

The Court further directed that the review petition would be taken up only after disposal of the criminal contempt petition.

Case title - Vishram Singh vs. Rajya Uttar Pradesh and 4 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 626

Case Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 626

Click Here To Read/Download Order