Allahabad High Court Seeks Report Over Alleged House Arrest Of An Advocate Under 'Oral Directions' Of District Judge

The Allahabad High Court on Tuesday raised concerns over the alleged detention of a 70-year-old advocate from Agra, who was purportedly placed under house arrest by police personnel in November 2024 on the 'oral' directions of the District and Sessions Judge. The petitioner (Advocate Mahtab Singh) claimed he was detained in his house for 2 hours after serving Section 168 BNSS (Police to prevent cognizable offences) notice so as to prevent him from meeting the Administrative (High Court) Judge until he was present in the Judgeship. In the petitioner's case, his liberty was curtailed by the state authorities only because the District Judge believed that the petitioner might make a complaint against him to the Administrative Judge. Taking note of the 'unusual' matter, a bench of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Vipin Chandra Dixit called for a report from the District Judge of Agra and also a clarification as to who had issued instructions to the police to serve notice upon the petitioner or to interfere with his liberties. In its order, the Court also remarked that it failed to understand the need and occasion for the police personnel to serve the notice under Section 168 BNSS upon the petitioner on account of the Administrative Judge's visit. The Court also rejected the state's justification for issuing the notice based on three criminal cases related to a solitary incident from 1988. The incident occurred in the court premises, involving over 40-50 lawyers, including the petitioner. “Even if, the petitioner was implicated in this case, this itself would not be sufficient to issue notice under Section 168 BNSS after almost 37 years of the incident. The affidavit of the Commissioner of police is otherwise absolutely silent as to from whom he received instructions to issue notice to the petitioner or to curtail his liberties. The materials on record do not prima facie justify issuance of notice under Section 168 BNSS, 2023 inasmuch as commission of any cognizable offence cannot be apprehended on the basis of it,” the bench remarked. Though the state argued that the police personnel's visit to the petitioner's house was solely to serve the notice issued under Section 168 BNSS and that the petitioner was not put under house arrest, the Court prima facie found substance in the petitioner's grievance, noting that the matter requires deeper investigation. Notably, the Commissioner of Police submitted an affidavit to the High Court detailing the police's actions. The affidavit stated that a leaflet had been circulated by another advocate, urging lawyers (including the petitioner) to meet with the Administrative Judge to raise concerns about issues faced by the legal community. The police officials, however, apprehended that the petitioner might engage in unconstitutional activities, prompting them to issue a notice under Section 168 BNSS to maintain peace. The bench, however, did not find justification in the issuance of the notice on this ground also, as it observed that if there is any unauthorized interference by the State, under unknown instructions, for withholding information from the Administrative Judge during his visit to the District, it may cause serious impairment to the administration of justice in the Judgeship. “In the hierarchy of Courts, the District Judgeship being 8 most accessible are virtually the foundational Courts. Its effectiveness in securing rule of law cannot be over emphasized. The visit of Administrative Judge to the District Judgeship concerned has thus important objective to achieve. It ensures smooth functioning of the judgeship. Views of the lawyers in such circumstances become important. Very often, the Administrative Judge visiting the District Judgeship interact with lawyers so as to ascertain the smooth functioning of the District Judgeship,” the division bench further remarked. Against this backdrop, the court called upon this High Court's Registrar (Compliance) to obtain a report from the District Judge, Agra, on the entire matter. Furthermore, the Court directed that the comments of the concerned District Judge, Agra would be submitted in a sealed cover to be placed before the Court on the next date (February 28). Advocate Sandeep Mishra appeared for the petitioner.Case title - Mahatab Singh vs. State Of Up And 3 OthersClick here to read/download order

Allahabad High Court Seeks Report Over Alleged House Arrest Of An Advocate Under 'Oral Directions' Of District Judge

Sparsh Upadhyay

Tags