1. Employees were arrested following an alleged altercation over toll collection; they moved for bail alleging lack of due process and an atmosphere of fear preventing legal representation. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(SC) 276
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
VIKRAM NATH, SANDEEP MEHTA, JJ.
Vishvjeet And Others – Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh And Another – Respondent
Writ Petition(Criminal) No(s). 109 of 2026
Decided On : 17-03-2026
Important Points
The court affirmed the fundamental right to liberty, criticizing the unlawful denial of bail and violence by Bar members against petitioners seeking legal representation.
Subject
Criminal Law - Constitutional Rights
Act Referred
BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA: S.109, S.110, S.115, S.3, S.311, S.351, S.352
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: Art.21, Art.32
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: Art.21, Art.32
Headnote
(A) Constitution of India - Article 21 and Article 32 - Fundamental Rights - Writ petition challenging unlawful arrest and denial of bail - Members of the District Bar Association indulged in violence against petitioners, depriving them of legal representation - Writ filed for bail and transfer of proceedings - The Court condemned the hooliganism by Bar members and asserted the importance of legal representation and fair trial (Paras 1, 10, 14, 15, 17).
(B) Right to Liberty - The Court found the denial of bail unjustified, recognizing the petitioners were performing their duties during the incident and thus upheld their fundamental right to personal liberty (Paras 15, 16).
(C) Professional Conduct - The Court noted the tarnishing of the legal profession's image and the necessity for proper actions to be taken by the Bar Council (Paras 14, 19).
Facts of the case:
Petitioners, employed at a toll plaza, were arrested following an altercation with a complainant advocate. Following their arrest, they faced violence from fellow advocates protesting their defense.
Findings of Court:
The Court emphasized the misconduct within the legal profession and mandated the petitioners' immediate release on bail while transferring their case to a neutral jurisdiction (Paras 17, 19).
Issues: The main questions included the legality of the arrest, denial of bail, and professional conduct of lawyers in Barabanki.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated the importance of maintaining dignity in the profession and protecting fundamental rights, finding the actions against the petitioners egregious and not justifiable (Paras 16, 20).
Result: Writ petition allowed; petitioners directed to be released on bail.
(B) Right to Liberty - The Court found the denial of bail unjustified, recognizing the petitioners were performing their duties during the incident and thus upheld their fundamental right to personal liberty (Paras 15, 16).
(C) Professional Conduct - The Court noted the tarnishing of the legal profession's image and the necessity for proper actions to be taken by the Bar Council (Paras 14, 19).
Facts of the case:
Petitioners, employed at a toll plaza, were arrested following an altercation with a complainant advocate. Following their arrest, they faced violence from fellow advocates protesting their defense.
Findings of Court:
The Court emphasized the misconduct within the legal profession and mandated the petitioners' immediate release on bail while transferring their case to a neutral jurisdiction (Paras 17, 19).
Issues: The main questions included the legality of the arrest, denial of bail, and professional conduct of lawyers in Barabanki.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated the importance of maintaining dignity in the profession and protecting fundamental rights, finding the actions against the petitioners egregious and not justifiable (Paras 16, 20).
Result: Writ petition allowed; petitioners directed to be released on bail.
Judgement Key Points
Based on the legal document provided, here are the key points with corresponding references:
- Case Details: The Supreme Court of India, in a Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 109 of 2026 decided on 17-03-2026 by Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, affirmed the fundamental right to liberty and criticized unlawful bail denial and violence by Bar members. [judgement_subject]
- Legal Framework: The judgment refers to the Constitution of India (Articles 21 and 32) and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. [judgement_act_referred]
- Facts of the Case: Petitioners, employed at a toll plaza by M/s. Skylark Infra Engineering Pvt. Ltd., were arrested following an altercation with an advocate, Mr. Ratnesh Shukla, who allegedly refused to pay toll charges. (!) (!)
- Arrest and FIR: An FIR (No. 15/2026) was registered at P.S. Haidergarh, District Barabanki, on 14-01-2026 under various sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The petitioners alleged that grounds of arrest were not communicated to them at the time of arrest. (!) (!)
- Violence by Bar Members: Following the FIR, members of the Bar Association engaged in violent protests. A resolution was passed that no advocate would represent the accused. (!) (!)
- Specific Incident of Violence: Advocate Manoj Shukla filed a bail application on 05-02-2026. In retaliation, Bar members stormed his office, set his furniture on fire, and burnt his effigy. (!) (!)
- Impact on Legal Representation: The atmosphere of fear created by the violence dissuaded any advocate from representing the petitioners, depriving them of access to legal remedies. (!)
- Petitioners' Relief Sought: The petitioners approached the Court under Article 32 seeking release on bail and transfer of proceedings to a neutral jurisdiction (Delhi). (!)
- Court's Findings on Bail: The Court found the denial of bail unjustified as the petitioners were performing their duties, and their continued custody violated Article 21 (Right to Liberty). (!) (!)
- Court's Directives:
- Condemnation of Conduct: The Court condemned the hooliganism by Bar members, tarnishing the image of the legal profession, and directed the Bar Council of India to take disciplinary action. (!) (!)
- Disposal: The writ petition was allowed, and pending applications were disposed of. (!) (!) (!)
Legal Category Hierarchy
- constitutional law
- practice and procedure
- crime and sentencing
Advocates appeared:
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 the Respondent(s): Mr. Rohit K. Singh, AOR Mr. Pritam Bishwas, Adv. Mr. Kartikey Bansal, ADv.
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 the Respondent(s): Mr. Rohit K. Singh, AOR Mr. Pritam Bishwas, Adv. Mr. Kartikey Bansal, ADv.
Table of Contents
2. Petitioners contested the denial of bail and the failure to communicate arrest grounds, while local legal associations collectively resolved not to represent the accused amidst ongoing protests. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 )
3. The court observed that systemic hooliganism by legal practitioners and the unjustified denial of personal liberty for minor scuffles necessitated immediate judicial intervention under Article 32. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 )
4. Violent obstruction of the right to legal representation and unjustified incarceration warrant the court's intervention to secure bail and transfer criminal proceedings to ensure a fair trial. (Para 16 , 17 )
5. The court ordered the immediate release of petitioners on bail, transferred the case to a different jurisdiction, and directed police protection for the accused. (Para 17 , 18 )
6. Does the right to legal counsel provide basis for bail if local bar associations prevent representation through violence?
Yes, when an atmosphere of fear created by local bar associations deprives accused persons of the right to legal counsel and access to justice, the court may invoke Article 32 to grant bail and transfer proceedings to a neutral jurisdiction to ensure a fair trial. (Para 9 , 10 , 14 , 17 )
7. Can the Supreme Court grant bail or transfer a criminal case under Article 32 when fundamental rights are violated?
Yes, the Supreme Court has the authority under Article 32 to grant bail and transfer criminal proceedings in cases where the denial of liberty is unjustified and rights to access justice and legal representation are fundamentally compromised. (Para 16 , 17 )
8. What is the responsibility of the state police regarding accused persons in high-conflict environments?
The state police, particularly the Director General, are responsible for ensuring the safety and security of accused individuals, including providing protection upon release on bail when specific threats or hostile environments exist. (Para 18 , 21 )
ORDER
1. The custodians of justice (Members of the District Bar Association, Barabanki) have turned into perpetrators of violence, which has led the petitioners to knock the doors of this Court to protect their Fundamental Rights by way of this writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
2. The present writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, preferred by the petitioners, presents a sorry state of affairs with respect to the conduct of law professionals, particularly in the State of Uttar Pradesh.
3. The petitioners are contractual employees of a company, named, M/s. Skylark Infra Engineering Pvt. Ltd., and are permanent residents of the State of Madhya Pradesh. They were posted for toll collection duty at the Gotona Bara Toll Plaza on the Lucknow- Sultanpur Highway, in District Barabanki, Uttar Pradesh.
4. On 14th January, 2026, an advocate, namely, Mr. Ratnesh Shukla [hereinafter, being referred to as the ‘complainant’], allegedly refused to pay the requisite toll charges while passing through the said toll plaza. Consequently, a verbal spat ensued between the complainant and the staff posted at the toll plaza, which subsequently escalated into a scuffle. It is alleged that the petitioners, being the employees of the operating company and posted at the toll plaza, assaulted the complainant.
5. An F.I.R., bearing No. 15/2026 came to be registered at P.S. Haidergarh, District Barabanki on 14th January, 2026 at the instance of the complainant for the offences punishable under Sections 115 (2), 352, 351(3), 109(1), 110, 311 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
6. It is the case of the petitioners that the grounds of arrest were not communicated to them at the time of their arrest. The petitioners were thereafter produced before the learned A.C.J.M., Barabanki and were remanded to judicial custody by order dated 16th January, 2026. It is further averred in the writ petition that the remand proceedings do not reflect compliance with the mandatory requirement of communicating the grounds of arrest to the accused persons.
7. It is also stated that, immediately after the registration of the F.I.R., members of the Bar Association started violent protests, as is the usual feature these days. Most notably, what is most unfortunate is that even the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh joined the fray and addressed a letter to the Hon’ble Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh requesting invocation of the provisions of National Security Act against the petitioners even though the incident pertained to a trivial scuffle.
8. It is further stated that a resolution was passed and circulated within the local bar to the effect that no advocate would represent the accused persons in connection with the FIR No. 15/2026. Notwithstanding the aforesaid resolution, one advocate, namely, Shri Manoj Shukla, displayed considerable courage and filed a bail application on behalf of the petitioners on 5th February, 2026. Shortly thereafter, the members of the Bar resorted to unruly behaviour and the office furniture of the said advocate was set on fire, and his effigy was also burnt. The news relating to these acts of hooliganism and arson has been published in the local newspapers, and the copies thereof have been annexed with the writ petition. The photographs placed on record clearly depict that the furniture of the advocate was set to fire. The news report of these incidents as published in the ‘Dainik Bhaskar’ newspaper, Lucknow City Edition dated 6th February, 2026, is reproduced hereinbelow for the sake of ready reference: -
“Dainik Bhaskar
Lucknow City 06-02-2026
Lawyers burned the belongings of a colleague who had secured bail for the toll employees who assaulted them. A commotion ensued when the lawyer secretly filed a bail application for the accused.
A lawyer versus lawyer dispute erupted between lawyers on Thursday in the Barabanki district court premises.
A massive uproar and arson erupted when it was revealed that an advo
