Lawyers prevented from attending hearings
Justice Deshwal issued the order after counsel failed to appear for a bail hearing in Court No. 66. He was told that protesting advocates had barred the applicant's lawyers from entering and had removed government advocates from the courtroom.
The order also described hearing a woman advocate's cries as she tried to enter to attend her case. According to the court, she was mistreated and forcibly denied entry.
Calling the conduct damaging to the dignity of both the bar and the court, the judge addressed younger members of the profession: "Young advocates should concentrate on their studies as well as on preparing their cases to build their careers instead of concentrating on increasing their social media likes. Young advocates are the future of the High Court," the order stated.
The bail case, Rajesh v. State of U.P., Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 7004 of 2026, was adjourned to November 26, 2026.
A seating dispute and three days of disruption
The protests followed an October 27 incident in Justice Ajay Bhanot's Court No. 49. According to the High Court Bar Association, a lawyer objected when a Superintendent of Police occupied a seat usually reserved for advocates and was then made to apologize to the officer.
The association alleged that a separate chair was being provided in that courtroom for police officers and other senior officials. It also accused Justice Bhanot of threatening to jail the lawyer and ridiculing another senior counsel. In a letter to Chief Justice Arun Bhansali, the association warned that it would boycott Justice Bhanot's court unless action was taken. The order does not contain the judge's account, and the allegations have not been tested.
On October 28, lawyers vandalized Justice Bhanot's courtroom during the protest, with furniture allegedly damaged and overturned. No formal boycott of the judge had been called.
That day, Justice Deshwal instructed the Registrar (Protocol) to review CCTV recordings from outside Court No. 66 and identify advocates involved in shouting slogans. The identification was intended to allow a referral to the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh for disciplinary proceedings and the initiation of contempt proceedings. He required a report by November 19, 2026, the next listing date.
In a separate order on October 29, Justice Deshwal recorded that protesters had locked his courtroom gate from outside, preventing other lawyers from entering. He cited Supreme Court rulings holding that obstructing an advocate's entry into court amounts to contempt.
Warning over public trust and social media posts
In the October 30 order, the court rejected the idea that a group opposed to hearings could stop proceedings when most advocates wanted to present their cases. It also took judicial notice of posts by some young lawyers about the High Court's functioning and advocates, warning that incomplete and distorted accounts could deepen differences between lawyers and judges.
The judge linked the standing of advocates in society to public confidence in the High Court. Preserving the institution's dignity, he said, was a responsibility shared by judges and lawyers.
Referring to the recent vandalism and disruption, the order warned: "If public trust in the High Court gets eroded, then mafias and certain unruly public officials will start harassing advocates, as recently happened in certain districts, which was also highlighted in several newspapers."
The court also emphasized that government advocates belong to the same bar as private practitioners and deserve equal respect. It said it expected the newly elected Bar Association leadership to take appropriate action to protect the High Court's dignity.
