Allahabad HC Questions Police Passivity as Lawyers Allegedly Ransacked Lucknow Premises for Four Hours

The Lucknow Bench found police personnel visibly passive while lawyers allegedly trespassed and vandalised a disputed property, and summoned senior officers to answer the next day.

On 22 July 2026, a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court at its Lucknow Bench — comprising Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Manjive Shukla — took up Saksham Singh (Advocate) v. State of U.P. and 3 Others (PIL No. 682 of 2026) on an urgent basis. The petition was filed by a practising advocate of the High Court who appeared in person. After viewing video footage of the incident, the bench found that a group of lawyers had allegedly barged into a disputed Lucknow premises on 7 July 2026, vandalised it, broke CCTV cameras and manhandled labourers — all while 10 to 15 police personnel stood by for nearly four hours. The Commissioner of Police, Lucknow, was directed to personally inquire into police conduct and to appear via video conferencing the following day.

The Incident of 7 July 2026

According to paragraph 10 of the writ petition, on the evening of 7 July 2026, video clips circulated on social media showing persons dressed in lawyers’ attire entering a premises used for cricket net practice and marriage functions. The petitioner stated that the group abused, threatened, and manhandled staff and labourers on site, threw bricks, and broke CCTV cameras installed at the premises.

An FIR was lodged by Smt. Manorama Mishra, President, Karam Pradopi, who described herself as being in possession of the premises at Dayanand Sewa Sansthan. In the FIR, she named Sri Amit Mishra, Rahul Shukla, Deepak Prakash, Arun Jaiswal, and Anand Mohan Tiwari as Advocates she recognised among those who entered.

The petitioner further informed the bench that both parties to the underlying property dispute had been called to the police station, where Saurabh Kumar Verma, Advocate — a person against whom eight criminal cases are alleged and who is accused of involvement in property grabbing — was also present. Verma is separately the subject of the leading petition in a connected bunch: Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 8810 of 2023.

Status Report and Bar Association Links

Learned Government Advocate, Dr. V.K. Singh, placed before the bench a status report furnished by the ACP, Qaiserbagh. The status report named several lawyers, including Harshit Dixit, identified as the brother of Sri Avneesh Dixit, General Secretary of the Central Bar Association. In the connected matter (CRLP No. 8810 of 2023) heard the same day, the primary accused is Saurabh Kumar Verma, who is the Junior Vice-President of the Central Bar Association.

The bench described the coincidence as “a disturbing scenario,” with senior office-bearers or their relatives figuring in two separate incidents of alleged criminality involving advocates. The status report was taken on record.

What the Video Footage Showed

A pen drive filed as Annexure No. 2 to the petition was viewed by the bench. The footage showed a large number of individuals in lawyers’ attire entering the premises, driving away staff and labourers, and moving freely through the property. Members of the Bar who reside in the same vicinity informed the court that such groups of lawyers acting as vigilantes offer to resolve property disputes in an extra-legal manner, thereby bringing the legal profession into disrepute and circumventing the legal process.

A separate pen drive provided by the ACP, Lucknow, was also viewed. It showed the presence of a substantial number of police officers at the scene throughout the incident. The bench noted that the incident ran from 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. — four hours — before the ACP reached the spot, at which point the incident was already over.

The bench recorded that the police personnel “appeared to be treating the transgressors in quite a friendly manner and were visibly passive.” It expressly observed that the possibility of local police personnel having facilitated the illegalities could not be ruled out.

Failure to Act Despite Prolonged Presence

The ACP of the area was present in court. The bench posed a series of pointed questions: who the police officers visible in the footage were; why additional force was not summoned; why the trespassers were not apprehended despite their four-hour presence; and what action, if any, was taken during that period.

The ACP stated that force was called, but had no answer for the failure to apprehend those present. The bench recorded that the possibility of police facilitation could not be ruled out.

The bench also directed that the pen drive supplied by the ACP be retained, sealed in a cover with the case records, and that the video clip be separately saved and preserved on a court computer.

Bar Council Impleadment

The bench directed that the Bar Council of India, through its Secretary, New Delhi, and the U.P. Bar Council, through its Secretary, Prayagraj, be impleaded as parties to the petition. The necessary amendment to the memo of petition was to be carried out during the course of the day itself.

This PIL was heard alongside a bunch of similar matters involving advocates, all listed on 22 July 2026, with CRLP No. 8810 of 2023 as the leading petition in that connected bunch.

Security Direction for the Petitioner

The bench directed the Commissioner of Police, Lucknow, to ensure the personal security of petitioner Saksham Singh, the advocate who brought the PIL in person. The direction reflects the bench’s assessment that the petitioner, having exposed the conduct of a group including persons with alleged criminal records and Bar Association affiliations, may face a threat.

Order

The bench passed the following directions on 22 July 2026:

• The Bar Council of India (through its Secretary, New Delhi) and the U.P. Bar Council (through its Secretary, Prayagraj) are to be impleaded as parties. The memo of petition is to be amended the same day.
• The matter was listed for 23 July 2026 at 2:15 p.m. before the same bench, to be heard along with CRLP No. 8810 of 2023.
• The Commissioner of Police, Lucknow, was directed to join the proceedings on 23 July 2026 via video conferencing, having first inquired into why police personnel present at the scene took no appropriate action. He was to view the video clip available with the ACP before appearing.
• The Joint Commissioner of Police (Law and Order), the DCP, and the ACP, Lucknow concerned, were directed to appear in person before the court on 23 July 2026.
• The pen drive provided by the ACP, Lucknow, was retained, to be kept in a sealed cover with the case record; the video clip was to be separately preserved on a court computer.
• The Commissioner of Police, Lucknow, was directed to ensure the security of the petitioner.