Allahabad
The Allahabad High Court has cautioned young advocates against becoming preoccupied with social-media popularity, warning that incomplete or distorted information about the court could widen differences between the Bar and the Bench. The observations came amid an ongoing confrontation between lawyers and the judiciary following an October 27 incident involving Justice Ajay Bhanot. The court stressed that advocates and judges share responsibility for protecting the dignity of the institution and ensuring that judicial proceedings continue without obstruction.
What prompted the court’s observations?
The latest observations were made by a bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal on October 30, 2026, while hearing a bail application in Rajesh v. State of U.P. The court noted that the applicant’s counsel could not appear because certain advocates had allegedly prevented him from entering the courtroom. Justice Deshwal also recorded that a woman advocate who wanted to attend her case had allegedly been misbehaved with and forcibly stopped from entering the courtroom. The judge observed that court proceedings could not be stalled because a section of advocates did not want the court to function, particularly when other lawyers wanted to argue their cases. The bail application was adjourned in the interest of justice and directed to be listed again on November 26, 2026.
How did the Bar-Bench confrontation begin?
The tensions reportedly escalated after an October 27 incident involving Justice Ajay Bhanot, which led to allegations that an advocate had been mistreated. The incident triggered protests by lawyers and subsequently affected the functioning of the High Court. On October 28, Justice Deshwal took serious note of the disruption, describing the conduct of protesting advocates as “absolutely contemptuous”. He directed the Registrar (Protocol) to examine CCTV footage and identify those allegedly involved, with a view to possible disciplinary and contempt proceedings. On October 29, the judge recorded that certain individuals claiming to be advocates had prevented lawyers, including government counsel, from entering his courtroom. He also noted that there had been no official call from the Bar Association to obstruct court proceedings. The disruption continued to affect court functioning, leading to the observations made during the October 30 hearing.
Why did the court warn young advocates about social media?
Justice Deshwal urged young lawyers to concentrate on their legal studies, preparation of cases and professional development instead of seeking social-media popularity. The judge said young advocates represented the future of the High Court and noted that judges and senior advocates were making efforts to create a conducive professional environment for them. The court also cautioned that incomplete or distorted information about the High Court could unnecessarily deepen differences between the Bar and the Bench. The observation placed emphasis on the importance of responsible communication, particularly when tensions within the legal institution are already affecting its functioning.
Why did the court link the dignity of the Bar with public trust?
The court observed that advocates command respect in society because the public places trust in the High Court. It described the preservation of the institution’s dignity as a shared responsibility of judges and lawyers, rather than an obligation resting on one side alone. Justice Deshwal further warned that a decline in public confidence in the High Court could leave advocates vulnerable to harassment by mafias and unruly public officials. Against this background, the court expressed the expectation that the newly elected body of the Bar Association, High Court, Allahabad, would consider the situation and take appropriate steps to maintain the institution’s dignity.
What happens next in the case?
The court adjourned the bail application in Rajesh v. State of U.P. after recording that the applicant’s counsel had allegedly been prevented from appearing. The matter has been directed to be listed on November 26, 2026. The court’s earlier direction to examine CCTV footage also remains part of the reported sequence of events. The report does not establish the final outcome of any proposed disciplinary or contempt proceedings.
Conclusion
The Allahabad High Court’s October 30 observations came against the backdrop of continuing Bar-Bench tensions that had disrupted courtroom proceedings. While urging young advocates to focus on their professional development rather than social-media popularity, the court emphasised that incomplete or distorted information could deepen institutional disagreements. Its broader message was that the dignity of the judiciary and the reputation of the legal profession are closely connected, and that both judges and advocates have a responsibility to preserve public confidence in the High Court.