The Allahabad High Court has taken a decisive step toward restoring institutional discipline by recommending the initiation of criminal contempt proceedings against a group of lawyers involved in the violent disruption of judicial functions on October 28, 2026 . A Division Bench comprising Justice Ajay Bhanot and Justice Divesh Chandra Samant issued a comprehensive 29-page order following a chaotic series of events that saw the vandalization of Courtroom No. 49, the destruction of furniture, and the alleged physical assault of government law officers and court personnel.

The court has formally requested the Chief Justice to facilitate the registration of First Information Reports (FIRs) against the perpetrators, citing evidence of incitement to violence , criminal conspiracy , and direct obstruction of the administration of justice . Furthermore, the bench directed the Registrar General to identify individuals responsible for spreading misleading narratives on social media, seeking the removal of posts intended to damage the reputation of the court and its judges.

Orchestrated Unrest in Courtroom 49

The conflict reached a boiling point on the morning of October 28, 2026 , when a group of lawyers gathered inside the courtroom, initiating a deafening uproar that rendered normal proceedings impossible. According to the court’s order, the environment was not representative of a constitutional institution but resembled that of a "riotous mob hell-bent on violence." The bench observed that the protesters employed menacing gestures and aggressive sloganeering, creating an atmosphere of intimidation that forced the judges to vacate the courtroom for their chambers.

The situation escalated significantly shortly after the judges left the bench. Additional Government Advocate-I Paritosh Kumar Malviya sought refuge in the judicial chambers, appearing visibly shaken with a swollen face and visible difficulty walking. He reported to the court that he had been physically assaulted by a group of lawyers inside the courtroom, specifically targeted for his role in representing the state in cases listed before the bench. The court’s record reflects that other government advocates and court staff were also subjected to threats and physical violence, with courtroom furniture being discarded and damaged during the altercation.

Rejection of Bar Allegations

The roots of this confrontation are traced back to a letter issued on October 27, 2026 , by the newly elected office-bearers of the Allahabad High Court Bar Association, including President-elect Dr. C.P. Upadhyay and General Secretary-elect Santosh Kumar Mishra . The letter alleged that a lawyer had been humiliated by the court during proceedings on the previous day after raising an objection to a police officer occupying a seat typically used by advocates. The association claimed that the judge threatened to send the lawyer to jail and ridiculed Senior Advocate V.P. Srivastava , subsequently warning that members would boycott the court if action was not taken.

In its 29-page order, the bench categorically rejected these allegations, labeling them as "false imputations." The court noted that Senior Advocate V.P. Srivastava personally appeared to clarify that no such incident occurred and that he had never felt humiliated by the bench. The judges further stated that no order directing the arrest of any lawyer was ever dictated or entered into the official record. They characterized the Bar Association’s letter as a deliberate attempt to propagate a false narrative, which they believe directly fueled the subsequent violence on October 28. The court expressed that it viewed the " live nexus " between the misleading correspondence and the resulting disruption as a fundamental threat to the rule of law .

Institutional Deterrence and Disciplinary Measures

Emphasizing the importance of maintaining the dignity of the justice system, the Allahabad High Court remarked that differences between the Bar and the Bench must be resolved through established institutional channels rather than through physical force or public intimidation. The bench argued that the court cannot afford to ignore such incidents, warning that "appeasement of violence in Court will make the Courts vulnerable to blackmail and not prevent recurrence of violence."

By initiating the process for criminal contempt and recommending FIRs, the court aims to establish a clear deterrent against the weaponization of violence to influence judicial outcomes. The bench expressed deep concern over the impact of these events on younger legal professionals, noting that the reputation of judges is built over a lifetime and can be irreparably damaged by the circulation of social media falsehoods. The court asserted that freedom of speech at the bar does not constitute a license to slander the judiciary or incite civil unrest within court premises.

The matter has now been placed before the Chief Justice to decide on the appropriate bench to hear the criminal contempt proceedings . The Registrar General has been instructed to preserve the evidentiary reports and video documentation related to the incidents in a sealed cover. No individual lawyer has yet been formally charged or held guilty of contempt, and the findings of the 29-page order represent a formal reference that will now proceed through the standard legal channels. As the case moves forward, the administration of the High Court remains focused on ensuring that the judicial process remains insulated from external pressures and that the safety of all legal officers and staff is maintained within the court premises. This standoff between a segment of the local Bar and the High Court signals an escalating concern regarding the decorum of court proceedings and the legal response to coordinated campaigns targeting judicial integrity.