VISHVJEET AND OTHERSversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER

          [2026] 4 S.C.R. 184 : 2026 INSC 254

                 Vishvjeet and Others
                            v.
          State of Uttar Pradesh and Another
          (Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 109 of 2026)
                        17 March 2026
        [Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, JJ.]


                   Issue for Consideration
Matter pertained to acts of hooliganism by the Barabanki Bar
Members by attacking advocate representing petitioners in toll
plaza case.

                          Headnotes†
Constitution of India – Article 32 – Conduct of law
professionals – Acts of hooliganism – Petitioners-contractual
employees, posted for toll collection duty at the Toll Plaza
on Lucknow-Sultanpur Highway, in District Barabanki, Uttar
Pradesh – Advocate-complainant allegedly refused to pay
requisite toll charges while passing through the toll plaza, and
a verbal spat and scuffle ensued between the advocate and
the staff at the toll plaza, and allegations that the petitioners
assaulted the complainant – Registration of FIR at the instance
of the complainant for the offences punishable u/ss.115(2), 352,
351(3), 109(1), 110, 311 and 3(5) BNS – Thereafter, members of
the Bar Association and Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh started
violent protests and passed a resolution to the effect that no
advocate would represent the accused persons in connection
with the said FIR – However, one advocate, filed bail application
on behalf of the petitioners – Thereafter, the members of the
Bar resorted to unruly behaviour and acts of hooliganism and
arson, by setting the office furniture of the said advocate on
fire, burnt his effigy, and as such no advocate in Barabanki, or
even from the nearby places willing to represent the petitioners
and rather attempts made for representation of the petitioners
specifically denied, resultantly, the petitioners deprived of
access to legal remedies in the State – Writ petition u/Art.32
seeking, inter alia, direction to be released on bail and for
transfer of the proceedings of the criminal case arising from
FIR to a competent Court in Delhi:
[2026] 4 S.C.R.                                                             185

      Vishvjeet and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another


     Held: 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 – Sentiment of fraternity amongst the lawyers can be
     understood 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 by
     the members of the bar at Barabanki deprecated – Disciplinary
     body-Bar Council of India expected to take appropriate steps in
     this regard – Bare perusal of the FIR sufficient to satisfy that it
     was not a case wherein the accused-petitioners could have been
     denied bail – No dispute that the petitioners were performing their
     duties at the toll plaza where the incident happened – Possibility
     cannot be ruled out that the complainant may have resisted the
     attempt of the petitioners in demanding toll (rightly so) resulting
     into a spat between the complainant and the employees of the
     toll plaza-petitioners – In these circumstances, denial of bail to
     the petitioners and the curtailment of their liberty for a period
     exceeding two months absolutely unjustified and violative of the
     fundamental right of liberty guaranteed u/Art.21 warranting exercise
     of the extraordinary writ jurisdiction conferred upon this Court by
     Art.32 – Petitioners to be released on bail, upon furnishing personal
     bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned Magistrate – In order
     to ensure that the accused get proper legal representation and
     fair trial, proceedings arising out of the FIR to be transferred to
     Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi, for all further actions. [Paras 13-19]
     Judicial deprecation – Conduct of law professionals – Acts of
     hooliganism – Deplorable acts of hooliganism by the members
     of the bar at Barabanki – Damage caused to the furniture etc.
     of the advocate, who had filed the bail application on behalf of
     the petitioners – Role of the members of the bar at Barabanki,
     who indulged into hooliganism deprecated and condemned.
     [Paras 14, 19]

                                List of Acts
     Constitution of India; Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; National
     Security Act, 1980.

                             List of Keywords
     Acts of hooliganism; Members of the Barabanki Bar; Attack on the
     advocate; Toll plaza; Conduct of law professionals; Contractual
186                                                            [2026] 4 S.C.R.

                           Supreme Court Reports


       employees; Toll collection duty at Toll Plaza on Lucknow Sultanpur
       Highway, in District Barabanki, Uttar Pradesh; Refusal to pay
       requisite toll charges; Verbal spat and scuffle between the advocate
       and the staff at the toll plaza; Unruly behaviour by members of the
       Bar; Deprived of access to legal remedies in the State; Release
       on bail; Transfer of proceedings; Judicial deprecation; Damage
       caused to furniture of the advocate.

                              Case Arising From
       CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Criminal)
       No. 109 of 2026
       Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India

                           Appearances for Parties
       Advs. for the Petitioner(s):
       Md. Asif Iqbal, Iqbal Ahmad, Ms. Sangeeta, Atul Kumar Srivastav,
       Ms. Anu Priya Nisha Minz, Siddhartha Sinha.
       Advs. for the Respondent(s):
       Rohit K. Singh, Pritam Bishwas, Kartikey Bansal.

                  Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                     Order

1.     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.
2.     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.
3.     The petitioners are contractual employees of a company, named,
       M/s. Skylark Infra Engineering Pvt. Ltd., and are permanent residents
       of the State of Madhya Pradesh. They were posted for toll collection
       duty at the Gotona Bara Toll Plaza on the Lucknow-Sultanpur Highway,
       in District Barabanki, Uttar Pradesh.
[2026] 4 S.C.R.                                                             187

        Vishvjeet and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another


4.     On 14th January, 2026, an advocate, namely, Mr. Ratnesh Shukla1,
       allegedly refused to pay the requisite toll charges while passing
       through the said toll plaza. Consequently, a verbal spat ensued
       between the complainant and the staff posted at the toll plaza, which
       subsequently escalated into a scuffle. It is alleged that the petitioners,
       being the employees of the operating company and posted at the
       toll plaza, assaulted the complainant.
5.     An F.I.R., bearing No. 15/2026 came to be registered at P.S.
       Haidergarh, District Barabanki on 14th January, 2026 at the instance
       of the complainant for the offences punishable under Sections
       115(2), 352, 351(3), 109(1), 110, 311 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya
       Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
6.     It is the case of the petitioners that the grounds of arrest were not
       communicated to them at the time of their arrest. The petitioners were
       thereafter produced before the learned A.C.J.M., Barabanki and were
       remanded to judicial custody by order dated 16th January, 2026. It is
       further averred in the writ petition that the remand proceedings do not
       reflect compliance with the mandatory requirement of communicating
       the grounds of arrest to the accused persons.
7.     It is also stated that, immediately after the registration of the F.I.R.,
       members of the Bar Association started violent protests, as is the
       usual feature these days. Most notably, what is most unfortunate
       is that even the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh joined the fray and
       addressed a letter to the Hon’ble 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.
8.     It is further stated that a resolution was passed and circulated
       within the local bar to the effect that no advocate would represent
       the accused persons in connection with the FIR No. 15/2026.
       Notwithstanding the aforesaid resolution, one advocate, namely,
       Shri Manoj Shukla, displayed considerable courage and filed a bail
       application on behalf of the petitioners on 5th February, 2026. Shortly
       thereafter, the members of the Bar resorted to unruly behaviour and
       the office furniture of the said advocate was set on fire, and his effigy
       was also burnt. The news relating to these acts of hooliganism and


1    hereinafter, being referred to as the ‘complainant’
188                                                          [2026] 4 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


       arson has been published in the local newspapers, and the copies
       thereof have been annexed with the writ petition. The photographs
       placed on record clearly depict that the furniture of the advocate was
       set to fire. The news report of these incidents as published in the
       ‘Dainik Bhaskar’ newspaper, Lucknow City Edition dated 6th February,
       2026, is reproduced hereinbelow for the sake of ready reference: -

                              “Dainik Bhaskar
            Lucknow City 06-02-2026
            Lawyers burned the belongings of a colleague who had
            secured bail for the toll employees who assaulted them.
            A commotion ensued when the lawyer secretly filed a bail
            application for the accused.
            A lawyer versus lawyer dispute erupted between lawyers
            on Thursday in the Barabanki district court premises.
            A massive uproar and arson erupted when it was revealed
            that an advocate had filed a bail petition for toll workers,
            going against the Bar Association’s collective decision.
            Hundreds of angry advocates stormed the lawyer’s office
            and set tables and chairs on fire. This incident relates to
            an assault on an advocate at the Haidergarh toll plaza. Toll
            workers not only assaulted the advocate but also abused
            him. Angered by this incident, lawyers from Lucknow and
            Barabanki launched a major protest.
            After which the police sent the accused to jail. On Thursday,
            lawyers learned that Advocate Manoj Shukla, in violation
            of the bar’s decision, had secretly filed a bail petition for
            the toll workers in court.
            This news heated up the atmosphere. A large group of
            lawyers, led by District Bar Association President Narendra
            Verma, arrived at Mr. Manoj’s desk. Mr. Manoj was not
            present, but the lawyers threw his desk and chairs onto
            the street and set them on fire.”
9.     The petitioners have submitted that such acts of rampant violence
       by the members of the bar created an atmosphere of fear, and
       thereby dissuaded any further attempts to represent the petitioners.
[2026] 4 S.C.R.                                                        189

      Vishvjeet and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another


     Resultantly, no advocate in Barabanki, or even from the nearby places
     is willing to represent the petitioners and rather attempts made for
     representation of the petitioners have been specifically denied on
     account of atmosphere of fear created by the members of Bar.
10. Resultantly, the petitioners having been deprived of access to legal
    remedies in the State of Uttar Pradesh, have approached this Court
    by way of the instant writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution
    of India, seeking, inter alia, a direction to be released on bail and
    for transfer of the proceedings of the criminal case arising from FIR
    No. 15/2026 registered at P.S. Haidergarh, District Barabanki to a
    competent Court in Delhi.
11. Notice has been served on the respondents and Mr. Rohit K Singh,
    has entered appearance on behalf of the State of Uttar Pradesh.
12. The facts averred in the writ petition have not been denied.
13. In view of the emergent nature of the proceedings, wherein personal
    liberty of the Company’s employees, who were bonafide performing
    their duties at a toll plaza, has remained curtailed for more than two
    months, we proceed to hear and decide the writ petition without
    awaiting the reply of the respondents.
14. The facts noted hereinabove reveal a very sorry state of affairs. 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 14th January, 2026. 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 disciplinary body, i.e., the Bar Council
    of India is expected to take appropriate steps in this regard.
15. 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.
    There is no dispute that the petitioners were performing their duties
    at the toll plaza where the incident happened. Possibility cannot
    be ruled out that the complainant may have resisted the attempt
    of the petitioners in demanding toll (rightly so) resulting into a spat
    between the complainant and the employees of the toll plaza i.e.,
    the petitioners herein.
190                                                          [2026] 4 S.C.R.

                              Supreme Court Reports


16. In these circumstances, denial of bail to the petitioners and the
    curtailment of their liberty for a period exceeding two months is
    absolutely unjustified and violative of the Fundamental Right of Liberty
    guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India warranting
    exercise of the extraordinary writ jurisdiction conferred upon this
    Court by Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
17. Resultantly, we hereby direct that the petitioners shall forthwith be
    released on bail, upon furnishing personal bonds to the satisfaction
    of the concerned Magistrate. In order to ensure that the accused
    get proper legal representation and a fair trial, we direct that the
    proceedings arising out of the FIR No.15/2026 shall stand transferred
    to the Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi, for all further actions, i.e.,
    remand, filing of result of investigation, and trial. Upon the case file
    being received in the jurisdictional Court at Tis Hazari Courts, New
    Delhi, the trial Court may set appropriate additional conditions for bail.
18. The Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh shall be responsible
    for the safety and security of the petitioners, and shall ensure that
    upon their release on bail, the petitioners are duly escorted to a
    safe location.
19. Before parting, we condemn the role of the members of the bar at
    Barabanki, who indulged into hooliganism by damaging the furniture
    etc. of the advocate, who had filed the bail application on behalf of
    the petitioners.
20. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
21. The Registry is directed to forthwith forward a copy of this Order to
    the Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh and the Bar Council
    of India for compliance/appropriate action.
22. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.


       Result of the case: Writ petition disposed of.




       †
           Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain