A Bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice Rajeev Bharti also took strong exception to the circulation of 'provocative' videos against the administration and police, as well as the distribution of plastic lathis to the advocates.

Consequently, it also issued show-cause notices to the office-bearers of the Central Bar Association, Lucknow, and the Lucknow Bar Association, asking why criminal contempt proceedings should not be initiated against them and why their misconduct should not be referred to the Bar Council of UP.

The clash broke out between the Lawyers and Police outside the Lucknow District Court complex on May 17 after the local authorities attempted to clear 72 illegal encroachments marked near Swasthya Bhawan at Chakbast Crossing in the city.

The action was initiated by the authorities following an order of the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court directing the removal of unauthorised structures near the District and Sessions Court premises (Old High Court) in Lucknow.

However, the municipal body could only remove 14 structures because of heavy "obstructions and hindrances created by the Advocates, who were present on the spot.

In response to the demolition action, both the district bar Associations resolved to completely abstain from judicial work from May 18 to May 26, naming the same as 'Samuhik Avakash'.

On June 8, the bench received a confidential report from the District Judge regarding this act by the lawyers, as well as certain videos of meetings of the Members of the two Bar Associations and one video in which an Advocate was distributing plastic Lathies to the Advocates.

At the outset, the Court noted that this boycott by the lawyers had resulted in serious prejudice to poor litigants who travelled from afar, only to find the courts' work paralysed.

Importantly, in light of the District Judge's report, the bench strongly objected to the video showing an advocate distributing plastic Lathies, commonly used by police and PAC personnel, to the Advocates.

The Court pointed out that this took place in the presence of Bar office bearers alongside slogans that the Advocates "shall now handle the administration by means of these Lathies using force upon them (on administration and police)".

Relying on Supreme Court judgments in Ex. Captain Harish Uppal vs. Union of India, Common Cause v. Union of India 2005, Krishnakant Tamrakar v. State of MP 2018 and District Bar Association, Dehradun through its Secretary v. Ishwar Shandilya and Others 2020, the Bench said that lawyers have absolutely no right to go on strike or boycott courts.

The Court categorically said that to go on strike/ boycott courts cannot be justified under the guise of the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India, as it directly affects the right to speedy justice guaranteed under Articles 14 & 21 of the Constitution of India.

The Bench also reminded the lawyers of the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh's own strict resolutions, which mandate that when lawyers face local issues, they must apprise the Bar Council for a resolution rather than call a strike.

However, the High Court took note that the General Secretary of the Central Bar Association had already issued an expulsion letter on June 4, 2026, expelling an Advocate who distributed the lathis and another advocate who made irresponsible personal comments against the Administrative Judge) for 5 years from the primary membership of the Association.

Given that the Bar had already taken disciplinary action against its erring members, the High Court decided not to initiate direct ex facie criminal contempt proceedings immediately. Instead, the Court issued show-cause notices to them.

The notices were issued to the office bearers of both Bar Associations, as well as 3 specific advocates, whose conduct was recorded in the order, including a third advocate who allegedly delivered baseless and misconceived speeches on social media to provoke advocates.

They have all been given 2 weeks to submit an explanation, supported by an affidavit undertaking that they shall follow the judgments of the Apex Court and shall maintain good conduct and behaviour in the interest of the institution.

The matter has now been listed for a hearing next on July 27, 2026.