The Allahabad High Court has issued a series of sweeping directions aimed at protecting the integrity of the justice system, expressing deep concern over what it described as the growing presence of "gangsters and mafia elements" within the legal profession in Uttar Pradesh.
Justice Vinod Diwakar observed that the situation has reached a stage where it threatens public confidence in the administration of justice.
Background of the Case
The order was passed in Mohammad Kafeel v. State of U.P. and Another, where advocate Mohammad Kafeel challenged the dismissal of his criminal complaint against police officials. During the proceedings, the Court examined materials relating to the petitioner and also sought extensive information from the State authorities and the Bar Council regarding criminal cases involving advocates across Uttar Pradesh.
The Court noted that the petitioner himself was facing three criminal cases and that several criminal cases had also been registered against his close family members. However, instead of limiting itself to the individual dispute, the Court examined what it described as a wider institutional issue concerning criminal antecedents among members of the Bar.
Court's Observations
Justice Vinod Diwakar opened the judgment with a strong observation:
“Law dies twice, once when its officers turn criminal, and again when Judges choose silence over judicial courage. In both cases, the rule of law is the first casualty.”
The Court observed that several Bar Associations had failed to act against advocates who had allegedly become involved in criminal activities. It further noted that organized groups of law graduates were allegedly intimidating litigants, enforcing court decrees through coercive methods, and influencing proceedings outside the courtroom. According to the Court, such an environment adversely affects young advocates and newly appointed judicial officers.
The Bench also examined statewide data placed before it, recording that 4,157 advocates were linked to 5,056 criminal cases across Uttar Pradesh. Among them, 418 advocates were involved in three or more criminal cases, while some continued to practise despite facing a large number of FIRs.
The Court additionally expressed concern over the verification exercise conducted by the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh, noting that 105 advocates were found to have fake enrolments or qualifications during the Certificate of Practice verification process.
Directions Issued by the Court
To address the situation, the High Court issued several significant directions.
It ordered that criminal trials involving advocates accused of heinous offences-defined as offences punishable with imprisonment exceeding seven years-be transferred from their home districts to designated courts in another district to ensure fair trials.
The Court also directed that advocates facing such serious criminal prosecutions should not be permitted to practise before courts or tribunals in Uttar Pradesh until disciplinary proceedings or the relevant criminal trials conclude. At the same time, it clarified that this restriction would not apply to matrimonial or family-related disputes and would not prevent such advocates from attending court in matters where they are personally parties or accused.
Further, the Court directed the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh to register FIRs against the 105 advocates whose educational qualifications were found to be forged and to initiate disciplinary proceedings wherever warranted. The judgment also called for a wider audit of advocate enrolments and suggested that police verification should be considered a mandatory requirement before enrolment as an advocate. These measures, the Court said, were intended to preserve the credibility of the legal profession and maintain public confidence in the justice delivery system.
Court's Decision
Finding no merit in the petition filed by Mohammad Kafeel, the Allahabad High Court dismissed it.
While doing so, Justice Vinod Diwakar issued comprehensive directions to the State authorities, the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh, and judicial officers across the State for implementation of the measures aimed at addressing criminal antecedents among advocates, transferring specified criminal trials, and strengthening disciplinary oversight within the legal profession.
Case Details
Case Title: Mohammad Kafeel v. State of U.P. and Another
Case Number: Matter Under Article 227 No. 12231 of 2025
Judge: Justice Vinod Diwakar
Decision Date: 3 June 2026
