Supreme Court slams ‘hooliganism’ by lawyers, grants bail to toll workers, transfers trial to Delhi

The custodians of justice (Members of the District Bar Association, Barabanki) have turned into
perpetrators of violence, said the Supreme Court. (Image enhanced using AI)

“We can understand the sentiment of fraternity amongst the lawyers but that, by no means, can justify the acts of violence and lawlessness which ensued when a brave lawyer came forward to defend the accused. These deplorable acts of hooliganism deserve to be deprecated,” the top court said on March 17.

Sorry state of affairs

• The present writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, preferred by the petitioners,
  presents a sorry state of affairs with respect to the conduct of law professionals, particularly in the State of Uttar Pradesh.
• The custodians of justice (Members of the District Bar Association, Barabanki) have turned into
  perpetrators of violence, which has led the petitioners to knock the doors of this court to protect their fundamental rights by way of this writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.

• Most notably, what is most unfortunate is that even the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh joined the fray and addressed a letter to the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh requesting invocation of the provisions of National Security Act against the petitioners even though the incident pertained to a trivial scuffle.
• The legal profession, which was once regarded as a noble profession, has clearly been tainted and tarnished by the acts of hooliganism perpetrated pursuant to the fracas which took place at the toll plaza on January 14, 2026.
• The disciplinary body, i.e., the Bar Council of India is expected to take appropriate steps in this regard.

Toll dispute escalates into criminal case

• The case arose from an incident on January 14, 2026, when an advocate allegedly refused to pay toll at the Gotona Bara Toll Plaza on the Lucknow-Sultanpur Highway in Barabanki district.
• According to the FIR registered at Haidergarh police station on January 14, a verbal altercation between the advocate and toll staff escalated into a scuffle, leading to allegations that the toll workers assaulted the complainant.

• The petitioners, employees of a private infrastructure company and residents of Madhya Pradesh, were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on January 16, 2026.

Allegations of denial of legal representation

• The petitioners approached the Supreme Court under Article 32, claiming that they were denied basic legal safeguards.
• They argued that the grounds of arrest were not communicated at the time of arrest.
• Remand proceedings failed to reflect compliance with mandatory legal requirements.

• No lawyer was willing to represent them due to threats and intimidation by local Bar members.
• A resolution passed by the local Bar allegedly barred advocates from appearing for the accused.

Violence within Bar: Lawyer’s office set on fire

• When advocate Manoj Shukla filed a bail application for the petitioners on February 5, 2026, he was allegedly targeted by fellow lawyers.
• The court noted that his office furniture was set ablaze.
• His effigy was burned.

• Violent protests erupted within court premises.
• These deplorable acts of hooliganism deserve to be deprecated, the Supreme Court said, calling upon the Bar Council of India to take disciplinary action.

Supreme Court: Bail denial unjustified, violative of liberty

• The court found that the continued custody of the petitioners for over two months was unwarranted.
• “A bare perusal of the FIR is sufficient to satisfy us that it was not a case wherein the accused-petitioners could have been denied bail,” the bench observed.

• It further held that the denial of bail amounted to a violation of Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty).
• The court noted that the toll workers were performing their duties and that the incident appeared to have arisen from a routine dispute over toll payment.

Bail, transfer of trial, protection

• Allowing the writ petition, the court issued the following directions:
• Immediate Bail: The petitioners were ordered to be released forthwith on bail upon furnishing personal bonds.
• Transfer of Trial: To ensure fair trial and access to legal representation, the Supreme Court transferred the case from Barabanki to Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi.
• Security Measures: The director general of police, Uttar Pradesh was directed to ensure the safety of the petitioners, escort them to a secure location upon release.

Court condemns Bar conduct, seeks action

• Before concluding, the court sharply criticised the conduct of lawyers involved in the violence, stating that fraternity within the legal profession “by no means can justify acts of violence and lawlessness.”
• It directed that a copy of the order be sent to the director general of police, Uttar Pradesh, the Bar Council of India for “compliance and appropriate action.”

Larger concern: Erosion of legal ethics

• The judgment underscores growing judicial concern over misuse of collective power within bar associations and the chilling effect such actions can have on access to justice.

• By stepping in under its extraordinary jurisdiction, the Supreme Court not only restored the liberty of the accused but also reinforced the principle that fair trial and legal representation cannot be held hostage to mob sentiment, even within the legal fraternity itself.