Allahabad HC Orders Crackdown On Gangsters & Mafia Elements In Gowns
It is definitely a matter of grave concern that none other than Allahabad High Court is the biggest High Court in not only just India among all the States, in not only just Asia, in not only just Asia and Europe, in not only just few continents, in not only just many continents but in all the continents all over the world in a most robust, remarkable, revolutionary, rational and recent judgment titled Mohammad Kafeel v State of UP and Another in Matter Under Article 227 No. 12231 of 2025 that was reserved on 26.02.2026 and then finally pronounced on 03.06.2026 has minced absolutely just no words to hold indubitably that the Bar Associations in Uttar Pradesh have failed to take remedial steps against advocates who have turned into gangsters and “mafia elements”. It must be noted that the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Vinod Diwakar made it absolutely clear that such advocates have taken the legal profession as a means of seeking safe refuge, and even Judges in the district courts have refrained from taking any action against them as they enjoy protection from pressure groups and political powers. To put it differently, this notable judgment has barred advocates facing heinous crime charges from practicing before any court/tribunal in the State until the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings/trials pending against them.
At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Vinod Diwakar of Allahabad High Court sets the ball rolling by first and foremost putting forth that, “Law dies twice, once when its officers turn criminal, and again when Judges choose silence over judicial courage. In both cases, the rule of law is the first casualty.
I- PROLOGUE:
The present matter has had a chequered procedural history, marked by successive orders of this Court directing the Director General of Police, Director General of Police (Prosecution), Registrar of Firms, Societies & Chits, Uttar Pradesh, and Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh to place on record certain particulars essential for an effective adjudication of the petition. When the matter first came up for hearing, this Court took note of the grievances raised and the larger issue involved and therefore issued directions calling upon the concerned parties to furnish the requisite details. Pursuant to the successive orders passed from time to time, the stakeholders have now furnished the details sought by this Court referred to hereinabove. The material so placed on record reveals, inter-alia, the history of criminal cases registered against advocates, the number of such cases pending or disposed of at various levels, and the disciplinary action, if any, initiated and taken by the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh in that regard.
A perusal of the said material discloses a disquieting state of affairs- while the data furnished by the police authorities reflects that a considerable number of criminal cases stand registered against advocates across various districts, the disciplinary proceedings initiated by the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh are conspicuously limited to only a handful of advocates, suggesting that the institutional mechanism for internal regulation and discipline within the Bar has remained largely dormant and has not kept pace with the gravity and volume of the complaints and cases unreported.
The Bar Associations registered with the Office of the Registrar of Firms, Societies & Chits, Uttar Pradesh, have been functioning in contravention of their stated objectives and bye-laws. They have consistently failed to safeguard the interests of meritorious and professionally equipped Advocates and have neglected to take remedial measures against members who have turned into gangsters and mafia elements, or against gangsters and mafia elements who have taken the legal profession as a means of seeking safe refuge.
In several Bar Associations- most notably in Gorakhpur and Kanpur- office-bearing positions are held by individuals with established criminal records. Furthermore, in nearly every District Court, organized gangs of law graduates registered with the Bar Councils have entrenched themselves for the purpose of executing court decrees, resolving disputes outside the court through coercive means, intimidating vulnerable litigants, and actively carrying out the forcible eviction of tenants and property occupants.
It is also a matter of grave concern that the judges of the District Courts have, by and large, refrained from taking any decisive action in such matters- or have chosen not to acknowledge the gravity of the problem- owing, it appears, to a belief that these socially and politically motivated gangs of law graduates enjoy protection from the pressure groups and centres of social and political power-brokerage.
As a consequence, young Advocates and newly recruited judicial officers- possessing pristine and receptive judicial minds- are finding it increasingly difficult to function effectively, fairly and independently within this deeply unconducive professional environment, vitiated by small but powerful and dominant group. It is against this backdrop, that the matter is now taken up for final hearing and consideration on the merits.”
To put things in perspective, the Bench envisages in para 1 that, “The present petition has been preferred against the impugned order dated 18.3.2025, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.12/Special Judge, Etawah, in Criminal Revision No.131 of 2024, whereby the order dated 22.3.2024, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etawah, was affirmed. The court declined the petitioner’s prayer in a complaint case to summon the police officers.”
Be it noted, the Bench notes in para 45 that, “The statistical report suggests that there are a total of 4157 Advocates involved in 5056 criminal cases in 75 Districts, 7 Commissionerates, and GRP (the figures do not match when compared with the numerous mails and letters received from the victims and aggrieved persons). Out of 4157 Advocates, 418 Advocates are involved in 3 or more cases across the entire State. Out of 418, there are 28 Advocates with 11 or more cases, 126 Advocates with 5 to 10 cases, and 264 Advocates with 3 to 4 cases. Further, it is a matter of grave concern that certain Advocates in the State of Uttar Pradesh, despite having as many as 46 First Information Reports registered against them, continue to be permitted to practice before the courts of law. In order to appreciate the gravity of the issue, a few illustrative instances have been set out in the footnote. The said list is by no means exhaustive; it is merely indicative of the tip of the iceberg.”
It is also worth noting that the Bench notes in para 47 that, “The figure of 4,157 advocates against whom 5,056 criminal cases are pending is not an isolated phenomenon. It represents a State-wide pattern cutting across all 7 administrative zones, all Commissionerates, and across 74 of the 75 districts (Hardoi alone reporting zero). This magnitude warrants systemic attention by the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh and by this Court. The Compilation specifically records zero cases against advocates across all 26 police stations in the Hardoi district. This singular exception, in a State otherwise extensively covered, is a data point requiring examination: whether it reflects genuine absence of criminal antecedents, or a gap in data collection or reporting.”
As it turned out, the Bench enunciates in para 48 that, “The single most alarming entry in the entire Compilation is Wazirgunj police station, Lucknow, which alone accounts for 422 advocates against whom cases are registered, with 236 FIRs. This is more than three times the advocate count of any other single police station in the State and suggests a very high concentration of alleged offending conduct among advocates operating in the vicinity of Lucknow courts.”
As things stands, we see that the Bench point out in para 49 that, “Kanpur Nagar Commissionerate’s Kotwali (East Zone) records 109 advocates with 112 pending cases, the second-highest single police station figure. Combined with Karnalgunj (16/32) and Nawabganj (16/18) in the Central Zone, Kanpur Nagar emerges as having 323 advocates involved with 460 cases, the highest among all Commissionerates. Balrampur’s Kotwali Nagar records 52 advocates with 66 cases. The district total of 131 advocates/ 163 cases makes Balrampur the highest-burden district in the Gorakhpur Zone. Gorakhpur Cantt records 60 advocates and 49 cases, making it the single most active police station in the Gorakhpur Zone.”
Further, the Bench observes in para 50 that, “Within the Bareilly Zone, Sambhal district shows a striking concentration, with Chandausi recording 34 advocates and 46 cases, and Gunnour recording 14 advocates and 30 cases. The district’s total of 128 advocates/175 cases makes it the most adversely affected district in the Bareilly Zone.”
It would be instructive to note that the Bench hastens to add in para 56 noting that, “Category-wise breakup of fake degrees suggests that 105 advocates identified with forged qualifications reveals that the large majority- approximately 65 out of 105- had forged their LL.B. degree, which is the core professional qualification required for enrollment as an advocate. This is the most alarming category, as it indicates that a significant number of practicing advocates may never have legitimately obtained a law degree. The second-largest category comprises approximately 28 advocates who have forged their Graduation degree, which is a prerequisite for admission to a law course. About 5 advocates forged their integrated B.A.LL.B. degree. Intermediate and High School certificates were forged by approximately 3 advocates each, indicating that in some cases the falsification extended to the very foundational levels of education. One advocate was found to have forged a BCA degree. Taken together, the data paints a deeply troubling picture of forgery at multiple levels of the educational ladder, with the professional law degree being the most commonly falsified document.”
Adding more to it, the Bench points out in para 57 that, “The universities, whose names were most frequently misused for fabricating fake degrees, present a clear and disturbing pattern. The University of Allahabad tops the list by a wide margin, with approximately 52 cases attributed to it. This is particularly significant, given that Allahabad University is a reputed and well-established institution, and its name appears to have been exploited systematically, especially by advocates enrolled in the 1990s and early 2000s. Shridhar University, Pilani, Rajasthan, features in approximately 12 cases, predominantly involving forged Graduation degrees of advocates enrolled between 2018 and 2023, suggesting a more recent, concentrated pattern of misuse of this university’s name. Glocal University, Saharanpur appears in about 5 cases, mostly involving B.A.LL.B. and LL.B. degrees of recently enrolled advocates. Veer Bahadur Singh Purvanchal University, Jaunpur and Swami Vivekanand University, Sagar, MP, each appear in approximately 4 cases. Dr. S.V. Raman University, Kargi Road, Kota, Bilaspur features in about 3 cases. UP Board certificates- covering High School and Intermediate levels- were forged in approximately 4 cases. The remaining cases involve a diverse range of universities across several states, including Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Haryana, Tamil Nadu, Chhattisgarh, Delhi, and Uttar Pradesh, indicating that the forgery network has not only confined to any single region, but across the country.”
Most strikingly, the Bench also points out in para 58 that, “The district-wise data reveals a highly skewed geographical concentration of the fraud. Prayagraj accounts for the largest number of affected advocates, with approximately 49 of 105 cases originating from this district. This is perhaps not surprising given that Prayagraj is the seat of the Allahabad High Court and hosts one of the largest concentrations of enrolled advocates in Uttar Pradesh, but the sheer proportion of cases from this district warrants focused attention from the Bar Council. GB Nagar follows with approximately 7 cases, and Ballia and Lucknow each account for approximately 6 cases. Kanpur Nagar contributes about 5 cases and Saharanpur about 4. Several other districts, including Varanasi, Jhansi, Pratapgarh, Mathura and Muzaffarnagar, each contribute 2 cases. The remaining districts of Jaunpur, Fatehpur, Bhadohi, Kaushambi, Mirzapur, Agra, Hardoi, Hathras, Noida, Ghazipur, Shahjahanpur, Azamgarh and Maharajganj account for one case each.”
Most forthrightly, the Bench observes in para 59 that, “It must be noted at the outset that this list of merely 105 advocates, compiled by the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh as part of the verification exercise directed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and the High Power Committee constituted for that purpose, appears to be no more than a token and superficial exercise. Given the enormous size of the enrolled advocate population in Uttar Pradesh- one of the largest in the country- the identification of only 105 advocates with fake qualifications, after a state-wide verification drive, is wholly disproportionate to the scale of the problem that realistically exists. The spread of forgeries in the State of Uttar Pradesh, the involvement of advocates enrolled over a period spanning more than three decades from 1991 to 2023, and the systematic misuse of the names of reputed universities, such as Allahabad University over such a prolonged period, all strongly suggest that the actual number of advocates practicing based on forged qualifications is far greater than what this list reflects.”
It is worthwhile to note that the Bench notes in para 60 that, “The exercise, as it stands, appears to have been conducted in a calculated manner to give the appearance of compliance with the Supreme Court’s directions rather than to genuinely identify and weed out all unqualified persons from the legal profession. A truly effective and independent verification exercise would require rigorous, document-by-document scrutiny of the educational qualifications of each enrolled advocate, verified directly from the relevant universities and educational boards, rather than a self-declaration or peer-certification-based process, as adopted under the current framework.”
What’s more, the Bench lays bare in para 61 that, “The identification of only 105 advocates with fake qualifications out of an active roll of over 5,14,000 advocates is statistically implausible and administratively unconvincing. It prima-facie seems the verification exercise is cosmetic. The verification process has been based on self-declaration and peer certification, without any effective, results oriented independent cross-checking with universities or educational boards. It is done, but not on a scale required in a State like Uttar Pradesh. The Uttar Pradesh Bar Council’s verification rules permit photostat copies of documents and rely heavily on Bar Association certification, creating enormous scope for collusion and continued fraud. The entire exercise appears to be designed to demonstrate compliance with the Supreme Court’s directions rather than genuinely cleanse the profession.”
It cannot be lost sight of that the Bench notes in para 62 that, “The admission that no police verification is conducted at the time of COP issuance reveals a fundamental and inexcusable gap in the regulatory framework. Unlike other regulated professions- medicine, teaching, accountancy, civil services- where character verification and criminal antecedent checks are mandatory prerequisites. The legal profession in Uttar Pradesh has no such safeguard and proper mechanism at the point of entry. There is structural absence of entry level scrutiny in the entire process of registration. This structural vacuum has been deliberately maintained or negligently perpetuated over decades.”
It also cannot be lost upon us that the Bench points out in para 63 that, “The Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh has demonstrated a consistent pattern of institutional paralysis. Disciplinary proceedings against 98 advocates and special committee proceedings against 23 advocates were halted following the dissolution of the disciplinary committees due to elections. This trend exposes a critical flaw: the entire disciplinary machinery is committee-dependent, meaning elections- which occur periodically- effectively grant a clean slate to all pending proceedings against criminal and fake advocates. This is an institutionally untenable position.”
Plainly speaking, the Bench also lays bare in para 64 that, “The internal administrative affairs of the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh are conducted by members elected from amongst advocates themselves. Over a period of time, this self-regulatory framework has revealed certain inherent structural flaws, chief among them is the absence of any accountability. Under the guise of ‘independence,’ unregulated, self-interested factions and power-broking lobbyists have emerged within the body, operating with little institutional accountability. Such a trajectory does not bode well for the future of self-regulating professional institutions. One more point. It is not only in Bar Associations but almost in all self-regulated institutions, that such inherent flows have been observed over a period of time.”
Quite forthrightly, the Bench observes in para 128 that, “Bar Association Presidents and Secretaries who certify the practice particulars of advocates, as required under Form-A Column III of the verification rules22, shall be made personally and criminally liable, where such certifications are found to be false. The current framework imposes no such liability, making the certification requirement toothless.”
To be sure, the Bench states in para 129 that, “Necessary amendments may be incorporated in the Advocates Act, 1961 for judicial oversight of Bar Council functioning by the Constitutional Courts, if the legislative wing of the Government may deem it appropriate.”
It is worth paying singular attention that the Bench points out in para 134 that, “The Registrar (Compliance) shall circulate a copy of this order to all District Judges in the State of Uttar Pradesh, the Chief Secretary, the Director General of Police, the Secretary, Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh, and the Secretary, Bar Council of India, for information and compliance.”
In addition, the Bench directs and holds in para 135 that, “A copy of this order be also sent to the Chairman, Law Commission of India, and the Secretary, Legislative Department, Ministry of Law & Justice, Government of India for record, reference, and consideration.”
It merits noting that the Bench notes in para 136 that, “List this matter before this Court on 20.08.2026, at the end of the board, for reporting compliance. The Registrar (Compliance) shall place a consolidated compliance report before the Court on the date fixed.”
In its concluding remark, the Bench then concludes by holding that, “One more point before I conclude the judgement. It is apposite to draw a parallel from the Mahabharata. Draupadi was disrobed by Dushasana, while King Dhritarashtra- the very authority bound to prevent the wrong- sat in passive complicity, blinded by an infatuation for his son. It is respectfully submitted that such inaction by those in authority is no less culpable than the act itself, and it was this failure that sowed the seeds of the Kurukshetra War. The epic thus stands as an eternal reminder that when those in authority remain mute spectators to injustice, the price is paid not by the wrongdoer alone but by generations and multitudes who had no part in the wrong.”
In a nutshell, we thus see that the Allahabad High Court has ordered strict crackdown on gangsters and mafia elements in gowns. It has elaborated in detail why it was imperative to do so as discussed hereinabove. Absolutely right! No denying or disputing!
Author Bio
