'Legal Profession Tainted' : Supreme Court Condemns Barabanki Lawyers' Toll Plaza Hooliganism & Attack On Advcoate For Representing Accused

The Supreme Court has strongly condemned the acts of violence by members of the Barabanki District Bar Association in Uttar Pradesh at a toll plaza, after a dispute broke out over the alleged refusal of an advocate to pay toll.

The Court also condemned the lawyers for vandalising the office of "a brave lawyer" who came forward to represent the toll plaza employees who were arrested over the scuffle that broke out in January 2026. The Court urged the Bar Council of India to take an appropriate disciplinary action in this regard.

A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta was hearing a writ petition filed by Gotona Bara Toll Plaza's employees who were arrested and remanded to custody.

While granting bail to toll plaza employees, the bench observed :

“The legal profession, which was once regarded as a noble profession, has clearly been tainted and tarnished by the acts of hooliganism perpetrated pursuant to the fracas which took place at the toll plaza on 14th January, 2026. We can understand the sentiment of fraternity amongst the lawyers but that, by no means, can justify the acts of violence and lawlessness which ensued when a brave lawyer came forward to defend the accused. These deplorable acts of hooliganism deserve to be deprecated. The disciplinary body, i.e., the Bar Council of India is expected to take appropriate steps in this regard.”, the court observed.

After the incident, the toll plaza employees were arrested pursuant to an FIR registered against them under various provisions of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

The matter took a serious turn when members of the District Bar Association, Barabanki, allegedly passed a resolution refusing to represent the accused. When an advocate, Manoj Shukla, defied the resolution and filed a bail application on behalf of the petitioners, his office was vandalized and set on fire by protesting lawyers.

Taking note of such unfortunate incident, the Court described the situation as a “sorry state of affairs,” observing that members of a noble profession had “turned into perpetrators of violence.” The Court also noted with concern that even the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh had sought the invocation of the National Security Act in what appeared to be a minor scuffle.

The Court held that the petitioners were effectively denied access to legal representation, forcing them to approach the Supreme Court directly under Article 32.

The bench emphasized that such acts of intimidation strike at the root of the justice delivery system and cannot be tolerated. It called upon the Bar Council of India to take appropriate disciplinary action against those involved.

“In these circumstances, denial of bail to the petitioners and the curtailment of their liberty for a period exceeding two months is absolutely unjustified and violative of the Fundamental Right of Liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India warranting exercise of the extraordinary writ jurisdiction conferred upon this Court by Article 32 of the Constitution of India.”, the court observed.

Court Found Prima Facie Fault of Advocate, Bail Granted To Toll Employees

The Court observed that the petitioners were performing their official duties at the toll plaza and that the incident appeared to have arisen out of a dispute over toll payment.

“There is no dispute that the petitioners were performing their duties at the toll plaza where the incident happened. Possibility cannot be ruled out that the complainant may have resisted the attempt of the petitioners in demanding toll (rightly so) resulting into a spat between the complainant and the employees of the toll plaza i.e., the petitioners herein.”, the court observed, calling the continued custody for over two months was “absolutely unjustified” and violative of the right to personal liberty under Article 21, hence directed the immediate release of the petitioners on bail.

Recourse Ahead

To ensure a fair trial and proper legal representation, the Court transferred the entire proceedings arising out of FIR from Barabanki to the Tis Hazari Courts in New Delhi.

The Court directed that all subsequent proceedings, including remand, filing of the charge sheet, and trial, be conducted in Delhi. It also permitted the trial court to impose additional bail conditions, if necessary.

Recognizing the threat to the petitioners' safety, the Court directed the Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh, to ensure their protection and safe escort upon release.

In its concluding remarks, the Court unequivocally condemned the acts of hooliganism by the lawyers involved and directed that a copy of the order be forwarded to the Bar Council of India for appropriate action.

Cause Title: VISHVJEET AND OTHERS VERSUS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 257

Click here to download order

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Md. Asif Iqbal, Adv. Mr. Iqbal Ahmad, Adv. Ms. Sangeeta, Adv. Mr. Atul Kumar Srivastav, Adv. Ms. Anu Priya Nisha Minz, Adv. Mr. Siddhartha Sinha, AOR

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rohit K. Singh, AOR Mr. Pritam Bishwas, Adv. Mr. Kartikey Bansal, ADv.