Criminal Antecedents Of Advocates Pose Threat To Rule Of Law: Allahabad High Court Invokes Article 227, Directs DGP To Furnish Statewide Data On Cases Against Lawyers
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Single Bench of Justice Vinod Diwakar has directed the Director General of Police, the Director General of Police (Prosecution) and senior district authorities to submit district-wise data on criminal cases pending against advocates enrolled with the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh. Acting on a petition by a practising advocate facing multiple criminal proceedings, the Court has sought details of registered cases, investigation status, filing of charge-sheets and trial progress. Exercising its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, the Court held that it may call for such statewide information where criminal antecedents of advocates could affect the functioning of the district judiciary and the orderly administration of justice.
The petitioner, a practising advocate enrolled with the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh, approached the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging an order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate refusing his request to summon certain police officers as accused in a complaint case.
In a supplementary affidavit, he stated that three criminal cases have been registered against him for alleged offences under the Indian Penal Code relating to hurt, intimidation, cheating, criminal breach of trust, forgery and conspiracy, and under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. He referred to orders of this Court granting him protection in these proceedings, including stay of arrest in the Gangsters Act case and bail in the other matters.
Another affidavit annexed his complaint to the Senior Superintendent of Police alleging assault and threats by a police constable, the FIR lodged by that constable against the petitioner and his brother, a request to preserve CCTV footage, a medical injury report and a representation seeking fair investigation. An affidavit filed by the Inspector of the local police station, relying on the District Crime Record Bureau report, confirmed three pending cases against the petitioner and listed multiple criminal cases against his brothers under the IPC and special enactments, including cow slaughter laws, gambling laws and the Arms Act.
The Court first examined the material placed on record and recorded that "upon examining the affidavits, it stands admitted that the petitioner is implicated in three criminal cases, and that all his brothers are identified as hardened criminals." It stated that "this evaluation is essential to determine whether his conduct could in any manner affect the functioning of the courts and whether he would be capable of discharging his professional duties in a fair and credible manner."
The Court noted systemic concerns regarding advocates with criminal antecedents, observing that "this Court has taken note of the fact that the functioning of the District Judiciary has, on several occasions—though not always—been adversely affected due to the conduct of certain advocates with criminal antecedents appearing before the court." It further recorded that "it has further come to the Court's notice that in many districts, advocates who possess criminal backgrounds and are facing serious criminal charges are occupying positions of authority within the respective District Bar Associations."
While acknowledging the presumption of innocence, the Court stated, "It is correct that, until a court of law awards a conviction, every individual is presumed to be innocent. Nevertheless, an individual's conduct and antecedents undeniably bear upon both personal and professional integrity. Crime originates in thought, and thought influences conduct; therefore, when individuals facing serious criminal allegations hold positions of influence within the legal system, there exists a legitimate concern that they may improperly exert influence over police authorities and judicial processes while operating under the cloak of professional legitimacy." It added that "such situations—even if infrequent—pose a potential threat to the rule of law" and that "any circumstance that has the effect or tendency of undermining public confidence, and courts working in the impartial administration of justice, warrants close scrutiny."
Reinforcing its constitutional responsibility, the Court observed that "this Court is duty-bound to ensure that even the slightest threat to the rule of law is addressed with sensitivity and seriousness so that the faith of the common citizen in the justice delivery system remains unshaken." It therefore recorded that "in order to achieve the aforesaid objective and arrive at a logical conclusion, certain necessary details are required to be placed before this Court" and concluded that "therefore, without entering into or expressing any opinion on the merits of the present case at this stage, this Court finds it appropriate to call for the relevant information before proceeding further."
On the need for wider factual material, the Court observed, "In order to achieve the aforesaid objective and arrive at a logical conclusion, certain necessary details are required to be placed before this Court," and concluded with the caution that, "Any lackadaisical approach by the administration shall be viewed seriously."
The Court directed: “Accordingly, all Commissioners/ SSP/ SP, Uttar Pradesh, through the Director General of Police, and all Joint Directors (Prosecution)/ SPP's through the Director General of Police (Prosecution), are directed to furnish, at the earliest, comprehensive details of criminal case (s) pending against advocates enrolled with the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh in tabular format. The concerned officers shall be at liberty, and it is left to their discretion (wisdom), to furnish any additional information that may be necessary to achieve the aforesaid objective. Such information, if required, may also be submitted in a sealed cover, either directly before the Court or through the Registrar General of this Court.”
“The information shall include, inter alia (i) date of registration of FIR with respective Crime Number(s), and penal provisions, (ii) name of police station concerned, (iii) present status of investigation, and date of conclusion of investigation, if concluded; (iv) date of filing of charge-sheet, (v) date of framing of charge, and (vi) details of prosecution witnesses examined thus far, and current status of trial.”
“The particulars relating to the police shall be submitted by Director General of Police by summoning the aforesaid information from respective districts, and prosecution side information shall be submitted by the Director General of Police (Prosecution) by summoning aforesaid information from the respective Joint Director (Prosecution) or the SPP s. The Home Department shall ensure that the required information is furnished timely. Any lackadaisical approach by the administration shall be viewed seriously.”
“Registrar (Compliance) is directed to communicate a copy of this order forthwith to the Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh, Director General of Police (Prosecution), who in turn shall immediately forward it to the respective districts for timely compliance. ACS(Home) shall also be communicated for ensuring effective compliance.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Kamaluddin Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner
For the Respondents: G.A. Mohammad Kafeel, learned A.G.A. for the State
Case Title: State of U.P. and Another
Case Number: MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 12231 of 2025
Bench: Justice Vinod Diwakar
