The Allahabad High Court has signalled possible contempt proceedings and professional disciplinary action against advocates who allegedly disrupted court proceedings by shouting slogans and damaging furniture during a protest on the court premises.
The incident came to the fore on Wednesday when Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, while hearing a bail application in Devendra Kumar v. State of UP, heard slogans and commotion in the corridors outside his courtroom.
The protesting lawyers were reportedly expressing anger over the alleged mistreatment of an advocate by Justice Ajay Bhanot. During the demonstration, some lawyers allegedly damaged furniture and other items inside Courtroom No. 49, where Justice Bhanot was presiding.
The disturbance soon drew the attention of Justice Deshwal, who was informed that the lawyers had gathered to protest the alleged treatment of their colleague. The judge took a stern view of the disruption, noting that the protest was interfering with the functioning of other courts.
In its observations, the Court stressed that litigants approach the High Court seeking justice and should not be made to suffer because of disagreements involving individual members of the Bar and a particular judge.
The bench made it clear that grievances against a judge could not justify shouting slogans, obstructing proceedings or using language intended to intimidate the Court. It described the conduct as wholly unjustified and contemptuous.
CCTV footage to be examined
Taking the matter further, Justice Deshwal directed the Registrar (Protocol) to examine CCTV footage of the area outside the courtroom and identify the advocates allegedly involved in the sloganeering.
Once their identities are established, the matter is to be referred to the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh for consideration of disciplinary proceedings. The Court also indicated that contempt proceedings should be initiated against those found responsible.
The direction places the focus on identifying the individuals involved before any further action is pursued.
The matter is scheduled to come up again before the Court on November 19.