Why Were Cops 'Mute Spectators'? Allahabad High Court Questions Lucknow Police Over Alleged Inaction During Lawyers' Rampage

The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) on Wednesday came down heavily on the conduct of the police personnel while hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea concerning an incident in Lucknow in which persons allegedly dressed as advocates were accused of trespass, vandalism and hooliganism in the presence of police personnel.Questioning the apparent inaction of the Lucknow police personnel present at the spot, a bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Manjive Shukla asked: "Why were the police mute spectators when such an incident was taking place? Why was additional force not called and the persons not apprehended..."It further observed that the police personnel appeared to be treating the alleged transgressors in "quite a friendly manner" and remarked that the "possibility of the local police personnel having facilitated the said illegalities cannot be ruled out".In view of this, the bench directed the Commissioner of Police, Lucknow, to join the next hearing on Thursday after inquiring into the matter as to why appropriate action was not taken when police personnel were present at the spot.For context, the bench was hearing a PIL plea filed by a practising advocate of the High Court at Lucknow who alleged that on July 7 some goons dressed in the attire of lawyers entered a premises used for cricket net practice and marriage functions and started abusing and threatening the persons who were present inside.According to the plea, the persons manhandled staff and labourers, pelted bricks, damaged CCTV cameras and attempted to take forcible possession of the premises.Considering the seriousness of the allegations, the Court at the outset directed that the Bar Council of India and the Uttar Pradesh Bar Council be impleaded as parties to the proceedings.The Bench further noted that an FIR had already been lodged regarding the incident naming several advocates. It also took note of the State's status report referring to the names of several lawyers allegedly involved, including the brother of the General Secretary of the Central Bar Association.Referring to another connected matter concerning allegations against a bar officebearer, the Court observed that this is a disturbing scenario.After watching the video footage placed before it, the Court observed that it depicted a disturbing picture in which several lawyers allegedly barged into the premises, shooed away the staff, labourers, etc and roamed freely inside to take over the premises.The Bench further recorded submissions made by members of the Bar that such a group of lawyers acting as vigilantes promise to solve such a dispute in an extralegal manner, putting not only the legal profession to disrepute but also circumventing the process of law and compromising it.Expressing serious concern over the police response in this case, the Court noted that the video showed the presence of a substantial number of police personnel throughout the incident, while those allegedly wearing lawyer's attire remained inside the premises for nearly four hours.The Bench questioned:"...why the police were mute spectators when such incident was taking place as is alleged in the FIR and the status report Who were those police officers How long did the incident continue What action was taken Why was additional force not called and the persons not apprehended as they had trespassed and entered the disputed premises without having any right or title as claimed by the informant who has lodged the FIR and what action was taken by the police personnel during the four hours for which the transgressors were inside the premises before the arrival of the ACP Lucknow as the presence of police personnel at least 1015 of them is visible in the video clip throughout".Recording its prima facie concern over the conduct of the police, the Court observed thus:"In fact, we find that the police personnel appeared to be treating the transgressors in quite a friendly manner and were visibly passive. We do not want to say much except that the possibility of the local police personnel having facilitated the said illegalities cannot be ruled out".The Court directed that the pen drive containing the video footage be retained in a sealed cover and preserved with the case record.It also directed the Police Commissioner to ensure the security of the petitioner who had brought the matter before the Court.Case title - Saksham Singh (Advocate) vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home Govt. Of U.P. And 3 OthersClick Here To Read/Download Order

Why Were Cops 'Mute Spectators'? Allahabad High Court Questions Lucknow Police Over Alleged Inaction During Lawyers' Rampage

Sparsh Upadhyay

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Sparsh Upadhyay

Why Were Cops 'Mute Spectators'? Allahabad High Court Questions Lucknow Police Over Alleged Inaction During Lawyers' Rampage

Sparsh Upadhyay

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Sparsh Upadhyay

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers