Constitution of India – Article 32 – Conduct of law professionals – Acts of hooliganism – Petitioners-contractual employees, posted for toll collection duty at the Toll Plaza on Lucknow-Sultanpur Highway, in District Barabanki, Uttar Pradesh – Advocate-complainant allegedly refused to pay requisite toll charges while passing through the toll plaza, and a verbal spat and scuffle ensued between the advocate and the staff at the toll plaza, and allegations that the petitioners assaulted the complainant – Registration of FIR at the instance of the complainant for the offences punishable u/ss.115(2), 352, 351(3), 109(1), 110, 311 and 3(5) BNS – Thereafter, members of the Bar Association and Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh started violent protests and passed a resolution to the effect that no advocate would represent the accused persons in connection with the said FIR – However, one advocate, filed bail application on behalf of the petitioners – Thereafter, the members of the Bar resorted to unruly behaviour and acts of hooliganism and arson, by setting the office furniture of the said advocate on fire, burnt his effigy, and as such no advocate in Barabanki, or even from the nearby places willing to represent the petitioners and rather attempts made for representation of the petitioners specifically denied, resultantly, the petitioners deprived of access to legal remedies in the State – Writ petition u/Art.32 seeking, inter alia, direction to be released on bail and for transfer of the proceedings of the criminal case arising from FIR to a competent Court in Delhi:
Held: 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 – Sentiment of fraternity amongst the lawyers can be understood 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 by the members of the bar at Barabanki deprecated – Disciplinary body-Bar Council of India expected to take appropriate steps in this regard – Bare perusal of the FIR sufficient to satisfy that it was not a case wherein the accused-petitioners could have been denied bail – 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-petitioners – In these circumstances, denial of bail to the petitioners and the curtailment of their liberty for a period exceeding two months absolutely unjustified and violative of the fundamental right of liberty guaranteed u/Art.21 warranting exercise of the extraordinary writ jurisdiction conferred upon this Court by Art.32 – Petitioners to be released on bail, upon furnishing personal bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned Magistrate – In order to ensure that the accused get proper legal representation and fair trial, proceedings arising out of the FIR to be transferred to Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi, for all further actions. [Paras 13-19] Judicial deprecation – Conduct of law professionals – Acts of hooliganism – Deplorable acts of hooliganism by the members of the bar at Barabanki – Damage caused to the furniture etc. of the advocate, who had filed the bail application on behalf of the petitioners – Role of the members of the bar at Barabanki, who indulged into hooliganism deprecated and condemned. [Paras 14, 19]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.