New Delhi, Jul 22 In a significant development, the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court held an urgent hearing at 7 pm in a sensational case in which a Bar leader of the Lucknow district court allegedly assaulted Delhi-based advocates and their client inside a local court.
The high court termed the incident a “direct interference” in the dispensation of justice.
Interestingly, the cognisance of the case was taken after Chief Justice of India Surya Kant assured lawyer Abhipsa Mohanty that he would personally convey the matter to Justice Rajan Roy of the Allahabad High Court.
“I will also speak to him (Justice Rajan Roy of the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court, who is also the administrative judge of the Lucknow district courts),” the CJI said on Tuesday, when Mohanty mentioned the incident at the fag end of the hearing through videoconferencing.
The high court swung into action, and a bench was convened at 7 pm the same day.
In its 10-page order, a bench of Justices Rajan Roy and Manjive Shukla said, “We do not say much at this stage except that if the incident, as is alleged, has happened, which prima facie appears to have happened based on the video played before us and the statements of the advocates before us, it is a very serious matter.”
“The matter not only involves the commission of an offence by the alleged persons but also of interference in the dispensation of justice,” the bench added.
It underlined that this was not the first time that such an incident took place in the Lucknow district court, as earlier similar incidents had compelled the high court to take cognisance, including that of a PIL, after which several orders had been passed.
“In fact, we were compelled to constitute a cell in the police commissionerate, Lucknow, specifically to inquire into the activities of such persons who are either advocates or posing to be advocates but are indulging in illegal acts such as land grabbing or house grabbing or are interfering with the judicial process in district courts, etc.,” the bench said.
It noted that according to the application, advocate-applicants and the plaintiff (their client) were threatened with dire consequences and were also beaten up for having filed a case against an advocate and for attempting to put in appearance therein.
“It is informed by Ashutosh Srivastav, who is an advocate and a permanent resident of Lucknow, that there are at least three criminal cases against Saurabh Kumar Verma, who appears to be an office-bearer of the Central Bar Association, Lucknow,” the bench said.
It issued a slew of directions, including directing the Lucknow police commissioner to collect information from the cell headed by the joint commissioner of police about “the antecedents of Saurabh Kumar Verma, Abhay Pratap Verma, Harshit Pandey, etc., or any other advocate or person who may have been involved in the incident which took place today”.
“The applicants-advocates whose names and details are mentioned in the application shall be provided adequate security by the police commissionerate, Lucknow, as they are staying in Lucknow, with respect to the aforesaid suit and these proceedings, i.e., till they are in Lucknow,” the bench noted.
It, however, said that the request for transferring the property suit from Lucknow to some other district because of the alleged “influence being exercised by Saurabh Kumar Verma and his accomplices” would be considered at an “appropriate stage”.
According to Mohanty's application, she was in the court premises along with two other associates, advocates Ashutosh Srivastava and Komal Agarwal, and client Mohammad Shakir to file a ‘vakalatnama’ (legal authorisation) for a property suit (titled Mohd Shakir Vs Saurabh Verma), where they were allegedly intercepted, manhandled, and physically assaulted by local advocate Saurabh Kumar Verma and his accomplices.
