The Allahabad High Court has directed the Commissioner of Police, Agra, to submit an affidavit explaining the rationale behind keeping a 70-year-old advocate under 'supervision' during the visit of an Administrative Judge to the District Court premises.
The bench, comprising Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Donadi Ramesh, strongly remarked in its order:
"It would be a sad day if a lawyer practising in District Court is not allowed to attend the Court on account of restrictions put by the police authorities over the movements only because the Administrative Judge is to visit the Court."
The case involves Advocate Mahtab Singh, who filed a petition stating that he was detained in his house for more than 10 hours on November 15, 2024. He claimed that he was served with a notice under Section 168 BNSS (Police to prevent cognizable offences), preventing him from meeting the Administrative Judge while he was present in the Judgeship.
Taking note of the unusual nature of the case, the court had previously sought a report from the District Judge of Agra. The court also inquired about the individual responsible for instructing the police to serve the notice and interfere with the advocate’s liberties.
The report submitted by the District Judge of Agra stated that he was unaware of such police action and had not granted any permission for it. In response, the court expressed concern over the lack of clarity regarding who had authorized the action against the petitioner.
To further investigate the matter, the court directed the Commissioner of Police to clarify the following aspects in his affidavit:
- The policy of monitoring and supervising an advocate’s movements during an Administrative Judge’s visit.
- Details of previous instances where similar actions were taken by the District Administration during such visits.
- Justification for issuing a notice under Section 168 BNSS based on a case against the petitioner dating back to 1988.
The Commissioner of Police, in his affidavit, stated that another advocate had circulated a leaflet urging lawyers, including the petitioner, to meet the Administrative Judge to discuss concerns faced by the legal community. The police authorities suspected that the petitioner might engage in unconstitutional activities, leading to the issuance of a notice under Section 168 BNSS to maintain peace.
However, the court questioned the reasoning behind this:
"We have not heard of an incident in which an advocate is kept under supervision or notices are issued on the apprehension that a cognizable offence could be committed only because 37 years back the petitioner was implicated in a criminal case."
The bench directed the Commissioner of Police to:
- Explain and provide records of any similar actions taken against the petitioner in the past ten years.
- Ensure the concerned police official responsible for the action is present before the court with records.
- Require the Deputy Commissioner of Police of the concerned zone to be present, as he was allegedly informed about the matter.
The case has been scheduled for further hearing on March 18, 2025, with the District Judge's report to be submitted in a sealed cover. The court emphasized that it is crucial to determine whether this police action was routine or an isolated incident.
The case highlights concerns regarding police overreach and its impact on the legal fraternity. The High Court's inquiry into the matter seeks to uphold judicial transparency and ensure that the fundamental rights of advocates are protected.
Case Title: Mahatab Singh vs. State of UP and Others
