Detailed Description Of Concealment Not Mandatory Under Section 27 Evidence Act: Bombay High Court Upholds Murder Conviction Child Is Not A Pawn To Prove Mother's Adultery: Andhra Pradesh High Court Dismisses Husband's DNA Test Petition In Desertion Divorce Case Shareholder Ratification Cannot Cure Fraud Under SEBI's PFUTP Regulations: Supreme Court Restores Rs. 70 Lakh Penalty on Company When High Court Judges Themselves Disagree on the Answer, Can a Law Graduate Be Penalised for Getting It Wrong? Supreme Court Says No Superficial Burns Don't Mean Silence: Supreme Court Explains Why 80-90% Burn Victim Could Still Make a Valid Dying Declaration Daughter's Eyewitness Account, Dying Declaration Seal Husband's Fate: Supreme Court Upholds Life Sentence for Wife-Burning Murder Supreme Court Rejects Rs. 106 Crore Compensation Claim; Directs SECL to Supply Coal to Prakash Industries at 2014 or 2019 Prices for Wrongfully Suspended Period Section 319 CrPC | Trial Court Cannot Conduct Mini Trial While Deciding Application to Summon Additional Accused: Supreme Court Accused Can't Be Left Without Documents To Defend: Calcutta High Court Directs Adjudicating Authority To First Decide Whether Complete 'Relied Upon Documents' Were Served In PMLA Proceedings Husband Who Took Voluntary Retirement at 47 Cannot Escape Maintenance Duty: Delhi High Court Upholds ₹10,000/Month to Wife and Daughter Cannot Claim Monopoly Over a Deity's Name: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Trademark Injunction Against 'Kshetrapal Construction' Eviction Appeal Cannot Require Actual Surrender Of Possession, Symbolic Possession Sufficient: J&K High Court Amendment Introducing Time-Barred Relief And Changing Nature Of Suit Cannot Be Allowed: Karnataka High Court Counter Claim Is An Independent Suit: MP High Court Rules Properties Beyond Territorial Jurisdiction Cannot Be Dragged Into Counter Claim Co-Sharer Cannot Be Bound By Passage Carved Out Without His Consent: Punjab & Haryana High Court Modifies Concurrent Decrees ‘Prima Facie True’ Is Enough to Deny Liberty: Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses Bail in Babbar Khalsa Terror Conspiracy Case High Court Cannot Quash FIR for Forgery When Handwriting Expert's Report Is Still Awaited: Supreme Court Supreme Court Calls for Paternity Leave Law, Says Father's Absence in Child's Early Years Leaves a "Quiet Cost" That Lasts a Lifetime Three-Month Age Cap for Adoptive Mothers' Maternity Benefit Struck Down: Supreme Court Reads Down Section 60(4) of Social Security Code Bank Cannot Rely on Charter Party Agreement to Justify Remittance Contrary to Customer's Instructions: Supreme Court 19 Candidates Linked to Accused, Papers of Five Subjects Leaked: Allahabad High Court Upholds Cancellation of UP Assistant Professor Exam Result

Allahabad High Court Prohibited Two Advocates From Entering Premises and Restrained From Practicing Law and Bar Association expelled Both Advocates

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


 

The Allahabad High Court has taken decisive action against misconduct by legal professionals within court premises, emphasizing the enforcement of judicial integrity. Advocates Ran Vijay Singh and Mohd. Asif have been specifically targeted by the court for their disruptive behaviors, leading to significant restrictions on their legal practices.

 

The core legal issue in this judgment pertains to the enforcement of judicial decorum and professional conduct within the judiciary. The court utilized its authority under Chapter XXIV Rule 11(2) of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952, to address serious breaches of conduct by the advocates.

During the proceedings of Original Suit No.25 of 2022 at the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Prayagraj, the involved advocates led a group that not only disrupted the ongoing hearing but also escalated to physical assaults on litigants and threats to the Presiding Officer. This resulted in the High Court's scrutiny over the conduct of these lawyers and the security protocols within court premises.

On Professional Conduct of Lawyers: Highlighting the inappropriate actions of Ran Vijay Singh and Mohd. Asif, the court expressed deep concerns about their behavior, which it described as a serious challenge to the judicial system's functioning.

On Security Measures: The judgment calls for tightened security measures, instructing the Commissioner of Police, Prayagraj, to ensure adequate protection in the courts to prevent future incidents.

On Restriction of Practice: Reflecting the severity of the misconduct, the court has imposed strict bans on both advocates from entering the District Judgeship premises at Allahabad and from practicing law across Uttar Pradesh.

Notices of contempt were issued to both advocates, questioning their eligibility for continuing legal practice given their conduct. The court also demanded a comprehensive investigation, including a review of CCTV footage, to potentially identify and reprimand other involved parties.

Date of Decision: April 30, 2024

In Re vs. Ranvijay Singh And Others

Latest Legal News