Lucknow, Jul 29 The Allahabad High Court has barred four advocates from entering any court premises in Lucknow and ordered a confidential inquiry by the Intelligence Bureau (IB) into their background and activities in connection with the alleged assault on a litigant and lawyers from Delhi inside the district court premises.
A special Lucknow bench of justices Rajan Roy and Manjive Shukla, constituted on the directions of the Chief Justice, on Tuesday also directed advocates Saurabh Kumar Verma, Harshit Pandey, Yash Pandey and Abhay Pratap Verma to file affidavits disclosing their income tax returns for the past 10 years, details of their movable and immovable assets, those of their family members, their business interests and property transactions carried out during the last five years.
The matter has been posted for further hearing on August 24.
After examining a report submitted by the district judge and CCTV footage from the court premises, the bench prima facie found the four advocates assaulting litigant Mohammad Shakir.
The court directed the district judge and police to identify all other advocates allegedly involved in the incident and submit their details before the next hearing.
Appearing before the court, Shakir alleged that he had been brutally assaulted and threatened with death for pursuing the litigation. The bench recorded that the litigant appeared frightened and emotionally traumatised.
Observing that attempts by advocates to influence the justice delivery system or interfere with judicial proceedings could not be tolerated, the bench said the judiciary could not be held "hostage by a handful of individuals".
"While the overwhelming majority of advocates discharge their professional duties with integrity and dignity, there are a few 'black sheep' disguised in lawyers' robes whose identity must be established and against whom stringent action is necessary," the court observed.
The bench also observed that if an advocate, after representing a party in a property dispute, subsequently purchased the same property, it could amount to a violation of Rule 22-A of the Bar Council of India Rules, and sought an explanation from the concerned advocate.
The court directed the district judge to send the original records of the two civil suits to the high court in a sealed cover and asked the police to conduct a fair investigation, identify 10 to 20 unidentified male and female advocates allegedly involved in the incident and take action in accordance with law.
During the hearing, the state informed the court that Saurabh Kumar Verma was facing eight criminal cases at different police stations in Lucknow.
Expressing concern, the bench observed that it required consideration how a person facing so many criminal cases could continue to hold the post of junior vice-president of the Central Bar Association, Lucknow, while clarifying that no final opinion was being expressed as none of the cases had resulted in conviction.
The High Court directed the Director General of Police and the Lucknow Police Commissioner to file affidavits detailing all criminal cases and FIRs registered against the identified advocates and their present status.
It also impleaded the Bar Council of India, Uttar Pradesh Bar Council, Central Bar Association, Lucknow, the Union Ministries of Home Affairs and Law and Justice, the Police Commissioner, the DGP and the Income Tax Department as parties to the proceedings.
The bench further directed an officer of the rank of Joint Director in the IB to conduct a confidential inquiry and submit a sealed report before the court.
It observed that if the investigation revealed attempts to influence judicial proceedings, grab land or intimidate litigants and lawyers, police should also examine the applicability of Section 111 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita relating to organised crime.
The court also directed the Senior Superintendent of Police concerned to provide adequate security to Shakir, a resident of Azamgarh.
