'Undermines Judicial System, Harshest Penalty Required': Allahabad HC Deprecates Trend Of Prosecuting Agencies Targeting Lawyers

In a series of strongly worded orders, the Allahabad High Court recently took serious note of allegations that UP police officers threatened a 90-year-old petitioner and attempted to intimidate his lawyer in connection with a pending Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea filed alleging encroachment. A bench of Justice JJ Munir decried the trend of investigating lawyers for pursuing their professional duties, warning that such conduct strikes at the very foundation of the judicial system and, if proved, must be met with the harshest penalties under criminal contempt. "This is a trend which has been recently noticed across the Country about Lawyers being investigated in cases which they are arguing in Court. It hits at the very existence of the Judicial System and is so serious that it calls for action by way of criminal contempt to be concluded, if proved, with the award of the harshest penalty possible. It has to be put down with a very heavy hand," the single judge remarked. The remark comes in the backdrop of the Top Court's recent prima facie view that summoning of legal professionals by prosecuting agencies/police in relation to client information or advice given is untenable and a threat to the autonomy of the legal profession.The Supreme Court has also initiated a suo motu case on the issue of investigative agencies summoning advocates over their legal opinion given to clients. The matter will be heard on July 14.For context, the High Court was hearing a PIL plea alleging encroachments on a Gaon Sabha land in Village Badgaon, District Jaunpur. During the hearing on July 3, 2025, the petitioner's counsel submitted that his client had been threatened by the police, and a Constable had virtually arrested the petitioner's son and was taking him to the police station when the Village Pradhan intervened and rescued him. The harassment was purportedly for forcing the petitioner to withdraw the PIL petition in question. Taking note of the allegation, the bench, terming the matter as 'very serious', had called for an affidavit of the Superintendent of Police, Jaunpur, on July 3. It remarked thus: "Let the Superintendent of Police, Jaunpur file his own affidavit in the matter, mindful of the fact that if there is any grain of truth in the petitioner's allegations, which this Court has no reason to believe to be untrue, this Court will be compelled to direct this matter to be placed before the Bench hearing criminal contempt matters..." Now, on July 8, the Court considered the affidavit filed by the Superintendent of Police, Jaunpur and noted that the Additional Superintendent of Police (Rural) had inquired into the matter and he gave a clean chit to the concerned constable. The report cited ongoing land disputes between the petitioner and a rival party, and added that the police were merely responding to complaints related to drainage disputes. However, the Court remained unconvinced with the affidavit as it took on record the statements of the PIL petitioner (Gauri Shankar Saroj), and his grandson (Rajnish Saroj), who appeared in person, and they made identical statements regarding the harassment done to them at the hands of the police. Considering their statements, the Court was prima facie convinced that the Police of the concerned police station, including those manning the 112 Police Helpline facility, had a very 'premeditated design' to force the petitioner, a nonagenarian retiree from the Army, into withdrawing the instant petition by abuse of State authority. It was further noted that the police officers, including Constable Pankaj Maurya, allegedly extorted money from the petitioner's grandson under threat of arrest. Thus, the court rejected the inquiry conducted by the Additional SP as lacking significance and directed the Superintendent of Police, Jaunpur, to conduct a fresh inquiry and submit a personal affidavit by July 11, 2025. In compliance, on July 11, SP Dr. Kaustubh submitted an affidavit, wherein the fault of the policemen was admitted. However, at this moment, the petitioner's counsel [Advocate Vishnu Kant Tiwari] informed the Court that the police raided his home on the night of July 9, and they allegedly misbehaved with his father, inquiring of his whereabouts, and as to why he had gone to Jaunpur headquarters In his personal affidavit, Advocate Tiwari made the following averments : "After that, calls start coming from the number of the police station in-charge of Mungra Badshahpur, Dilip Kumar Singh... When he still did not pick up the phone, they directly came to his house with force... They are raiding his house with force, to put pressure upon him to arrest him at night." Reacting strongly, the Bench noted that it has noticed this trend across the country that Lawyers are being investigated in cases in which they are arguing in Court. Stressing that this practice...

'Undermines Judicial System, Harshest Penalty Required': Allahabad HC Deprecates Trend Of Prosecuting Agencies Targeting Lawyers

Sparsh Upadhyay

Tags