The Supreme Court on Tuesday, August 25, refused to interfere with the Allahabad High Court’s directions concerning the removal of around 72 lawyers’ chambers and other structures allegedly occupying public land and obstructing roads near the Lucknow District Court complex.
A Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta dismissed the challenge filed by the Central Bar Association, Lucknow. The Court also declined a request to send the dispute for mediation.
Background of the Case
The dispute concerns chambers and other structures allegedly constructed over public pathways or public utility land around the District Court premises. On August 6, the Allahabad High Court directed the Lucknow Municipal Corporation to issue fresh notices to the identified occupants.
The occupants were to be given an opportunity to either vacate the structures or establish a lawful claim over the land and construction. If they failed to do so, the authorities were directed to proceed with demolition.
The matter reached the Supreme Court after demolition notices were issued. The Bar Association sought protection against the High Court’s directions and argued for relief to the affected advocates.
Supreme Court’s Observations
During the hearing, Justice Vikram Nath questioned the basis for retaining constructions located on public spaces and roads.
“You indulge in unauthorised construction and then you say you are elected President of the Association or a member of its governing body, and therefore have a right to continue? No. All demolitions have to take place.”
Justice Nath also referred to his own experience of serving as a senior judge in the region, observing that such constructions had obstructed roads and affected traffic movement.
The Bench was also asked to consider alternative accommodation for the lawyers. Senior Advocate Adish Aggarwala suggested that another location could be provided and also proposed mediation. The suggestion was not accepted.
Justice Nath remarked:
“Mediation with lawyers?”
The Bench further stressed that court premises must remain protected from encroachments. Justice Nath recalled an instance in which a district judge’s designated parking area had allegedly been converted into a lawyer’s chamber.
Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the Central Bar Association’s plea and declined to interfere with the Allahabad High Court’s directions concerning the alleged encroachments.
The High Court’s process, which provides the affected occupants an opportunity to vacate or establish a lawful claim before demolition, therefore remained undisturbed.
Case Details
Case Title: Central Bar Association v. State of U.P. and Ors.
Case Number: Diary No. 51660-2026
Judge: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
Decision Date: August 25, 2026
