Lawyers Protest at Allahabad High Court After Bar Association Raises Complaint Against Judge

Courtroom protest reported

A protest involving advocates took place at the Allahabad High Court on 28 October 2026 following a dispute between the High Court Bar Association and Justice Ajay Bhanot. Reports describe advocates gathering near the courtroom and raising slogans, with some furniture and other objects allegedly thrown in the courtroom area. The incident is relevant to court administration because it concerns the orderly conduct of judicial proceedings and relations between the Bench and Bar. No formal judicial order determining responsibility for the reported disturbance was available in the material reviewed.

Background of the association’s complaint

The association had earlier alleged that a lawyer was made to apologise to a Superintendent of Police after objecting to the officer's seating in a row normally used by advocates. It also complained about the treatment of counsel by the judge and reportedly threatened a boycott if the matter was not addressed. These are assertions made by the Bar Association. The judge's response to the allegations, any formal administrative inquiry and the complete circumstances of the earlier exchange were not independently established in the available reports. They should therefore not be described as findings of fact.

Events at the court premises

Reports state that advocates assembled outside the courtroom where Justice Bhanot was sitting with Justice Divesh Chandra Samant. Slogans were raised and furniture was reportedly disturbed or thrown. A separate claim that a shoe was thrown at the judge could not be independently confirmed by the reporting reviewed and is not treated here as an established occurrence. The available material also does not identify every participant or prove that the conduct described can be attributed to all lawyers present. The distinction matters because responsibility for individual acts cannot be inferred from membership of a wider protest.

Professional conduct and judicial independence

The legal profession has established channels to raise grievances about courtroom practices, judicial administration and the treatment of advocates. At the same time, judicial hearings require safety, dignity and freedom from intimidation. The ability of judges to decide cases independently and the ability of advocates to present arguments without fear are complementary aspects of a functioning justice system. Allegations of misconduct by any participant must be examined through appropriate processes. A protest does not, by itself, establish that the underlying grievance was justified or that a particular advocate committed a legal offence.

What is and is not legally determined

No final contempt judgment, disciplinary order or police finding relating to the reported disturbance was verified for this report. It would therefore be inaccurate to describe the advocates as convicted of contempt or the judge as having been found guilty of improper treatment. Equally, the absence of such findings does not establish that the reported disturbance did not occur. Available accounts support reporting that a protest took place and that competing allegations were made, while leaving disputed details open for verification.

Potential administrative response

The association reportedly urged the Chief Justice to take cognisance of its complaint. Any response by the High Court administration, including measures to secure hearings, consultation with Bar representatives or proceedings against individuals, would need to be established from later official records. The material reviewed did not confirm that a particular administrative measure had already been imposed. For litigants, the immediate concern in any courtroom disruption is the ability to obtain a safe and uninterrupted hearing. Future listings and official notices will be important for determining the practical effect of the incident.

Significance for the Bench and Bar

Disagreements over courtroom arrangements can become institutional concerns when they affect access to justice. The proper resolution requires a reliable account of the original exchange, a fair opportunity for affected persons to be heard and steps that preserve respect for both advocates and judges. Public discussion should avoid inflammatory characterisations or unverified accusations. The present development is a reported disturbance involving the legal profession, not a substantive adjudication of the Bar Association's complaint. Any subsequent order, police action or formal settlement would constitute a separate development requiring fresh verification.

Case Details

Reported incident at Allahabad High Court on 28 October 2026; no formal case number or signed administrative order verified.