The Allahabad High Court has recommended the registration of First Information Reports (FIRs) against lawyers allegedly involved in vandalising a courtroom, assaulting government counsel and court staff, and disrupting judicial proceedings at the High Court in Prayagraj on October 28, 2026.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Ajay Bhanot and Justice Divesh Chandra Samant took suo motu cognisance of the incident and issued a strongly worded order addressing the alleged violence and disruption inside Courtroom No. 49.
The incident reportedly followed a dispute concerning the treatment of an advocate during court proceedings. The Allahabad High Court Bar Association had raised allegations against Justice Bhanot. However, the Bench subsequently rejected those allegations, describing them as false imputations and clarifying that the advocate had not been compelled to apologise or threatened with imprisonment.
The Court observed that a group of lawyers allegedly vandalised courtroom furniture, assaulted government counsel Paritosh Kumar Malviya and court staff, and interfered with the administration of justice.
Referring the matter to the Chief Justice, the Bench recommended that the Registrar General ensure the registration of FIRs against the lawyers allegedly involved in inciting, conspiring to commit and perpetrating violence and vandalism inside the courtroom.
The Court also recommended FIRs against individuals responsible for circulating allegedly false social media posts concerning the incident and called for the removal of such content.
Additionally, the Bench observed that the alleged conduct prima facie amounted to criminal contempt of court because it scandalised the authority of the judiciary, obstructed judicial proceedings and undermined the administration of justice. The matter was therefore referred to the Chief Justice for placing it before an appropriate Bench for criminal contempt proceedings in accordance with law.
Emphasising the importance of maintaining the dignity and independence of the judiciary, the Court observed that freedom of expression at the Bar cannot be used as a justification for violence, intimidation or attacks on judicial institutions.
The development highlights the importance of professional discipline among advocates, courtroom security and accountability for conduct that interferes with the administration of justice. However, the recommended FIRs and contempt proceedings remain subject to the appropriate legal process.