Explaining the direction, the bench referred to allegations that some advocates were amassing substantial wealth through illegal means or activities unrelated to the legal profession. It observed that such wealth appeared to have been accumulated “overnight or within a very short span”, raising suspicion that they were engaged in other businesses, possibly property dealings. The bench noted that the present case, too, involved allegations of an attempt to grab property.

“We are not forming any conclusive opinion about any of the advocates but considering the nature of the allegations, we would certainly like to probe… (their) financial status…,” the bench stated.

The incident

On July 21, the litigant, Mohammad Shakir, was assaulted on the Lucknow district court premises and was later allegedly detained at the Central Bar Association premises.

Shakir had come to court in connection with a property dispute in which the opposite party and main accused is advocate Saurabh Kumar Verma. As per the order, Verma is junior vice-president of the Lucknow Central Bar Association.

Acting on an application filed by Shakir and his lawyers, the bench on July 22 took suo motu cognisance of the incident and registered the matter as a public interest litigation (PIL). Before the High Court intervened, Shakir’s lawyers had approached the Supreme Court seeking its intervention.

The HC bench observed in the order, “… We find that in the case at hand, lawyers ran amok, abused, humiliated and manhandled a litigant at will, and threatened him with dire consequences, as alleged by the applicants and Mohammad Shakir, the informant of the FIR…”

The bench added that the FIR names Saurabh, Harshit Pandey, Yash Pandey, Abhay Pratap Verma, as well as 10-20 unidentified male and female advocates. It directed the police to identify the remaining accused and ensure they are held accountable.

“Any dithering in this regard will not be tolerated. Investigation should be taken to its logical conclusion… without any fear or favour. We will consider the status of the investigation on the next date fixed for August 24,” the bench directed.

As per initial reports by the police, Saurabh has eight criminal cases lodged against him while Harshit has one.

The high court, in its order, also stated, “On the next date, if we find that the eight criminal cases pending against Saurabh… are under investigation in Lucknow or are pending in any court, we will consider transferring the same to other districts. Similarly, if there are cases pending against other advocates involved in these incidents, or in incidents referred in any of the petitions which are part of this bunch, we will consider this aspect with respect to them.”

The court, in the order, further recorded allegations made by several members of the Bar, both earlier and on July 21, that a group of lawyers in the Lucknow district court act like “goons” and misuse their position to grab property.

These advocates, it is alleged, fabricate documents, initiate fraudulent litigation to facilitate land grabbing, intimidate litigants and lawyers, and attempt to influence court proceedings.

It also noted allegations that these groups routinely create ruckus inside courtrooms and across the court campus, using their numbers and aggressive behaviour to intimidate others and adversely affect the functioning of the courts.