The Allahabad High Court has expressed concern over advocates with criminal antecedents continuing to practice and remain in the legal profession, and under Article 227 of the Constitution has directed the Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh, and the Director General of Police (Prosecution) to produce detailed data regarding pending criminal cases against advocates registered in the State.
The Court made it clear that –
“………..judicial superintendence under Article 227 operates as a constitutional safeguard to protect the purity of the justice-delivery system. While the jurisdiction is extraordinary and discretionary, it must be exercised effectively where intervention is necessary to secure justice and to prevent miscarriage of justice across the hierarchy of subordinate courts.”
These observations were made by a Single Bench of Justice Vinod Divakar while hearing the petition of Mohammad Kafeel.
The Court expressed particular concern over the fact that –
“……………that in many districts, advocates who possess criminal backgrounds and are facing serious criminal charges are occupying positions of authority within the respective District Bar Associations.”
The Court emphasised that,
“Advocates and office-bearers of Bar Associations occupy a unique institutional position – being both officers of the court and custodians of professional ethics. Their conduct is therefore inseparably tied to legality and professionalism.”
In its special remarks, the Court stated that the antecedents of an advocate undoubtedly affect both personal and professional integrity. It further underlined that the strength of the legal system flows not only from statutory provisions but also from the moral legitimacy that arises from public faith in its fairness and integrity, and that maintaining public confidence in the justice system requires judicial watchdogs with clean backgrounds.
In the present case, the petitioner is an advocate enrolled with the U.P. Bar Council since 2022 and a lifetime member of the District Bar Association, Etawah. He had challenged an order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Etawah, whereby his application seeking summoning of police officials in a complaint case was rejected. The advocate alleged that on 13 November 2025, a police constable assaulted and threatened him near an egg stall at the railway station. However, in the compliance affidavit filed on behalf of the State, it was revealed that the petitioner himself is an accused in multiple cases, including those under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters Act, forgery, extortion and criminal conspiracy. The affidavit further disclosed that the petitioner’s five brothers have several cases registered against them, involving heinous offences such as cow slaughter, offences under the Public Gambling Act, POCSO, and attempt to murder.
Reflecting on criminal psychology in the context of the judicial system, the Court observed that –
“Crime originates in thought, and thought influences conduct; therefore, when individuals facing serious criminal allegations hold positions of influence within the legal system, there exists a legitimate concern that they may improperly exert influence over police authorities and judicial processes while operating under the cloak of professional legitimacy.”
Finally, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court considered it more relevant to obtain broad and comprehensive information on the issue. Accordingly, it directed all Police Commissioners, Senior Superintendents of Police and Superintendents of Police to furnish, through the DGP, a tabulated statement detailing pending criminal cases against advocates across the State. The Court directed that the data should include the crime number and penal sections, date of registration of the FIR, name of the concerned police station, present status of the investigation and date of closure, if applicable, date of filing of the charge-sheet, date of framing of charges, as well as details regarding examination of prosecution witnesses and the current stage of the trial. The Court also permitted the information to be submitted in a sealed cover.
Additionally, the Court warned that any “laxity” on the part of the administration would be viewed seriously, and directed the Registrar (Compliance) to immediately intimate the above order to the Additional Chief Secretary (Home) and other concerned authorities. The next hearing of the matter has been scheduled for 9 December.
Case: Mohammad Kafeel vs State of U.P. and Another
