New Delhi, March 18 The Supreme Court has strongly criticised members of the Barabanki District Bar Association in Uttar Pradesh for vandalising a toll plaza and ransacking the office of a fellow advocate after he represented the toll employees, stating that the legal profession has now been tainted by such acts of "hooliganism".
On January 14, five individuals allegedly assaulted advocate Ratnesh Shukla, a resident of Pratapgarh, during a dispute over the passage of a car at the toll plaza in the Haidergarh tehsil.
The incident triggered protests, with a large number of advocates gathering at the toll plaza on the Lucknow-Sultanpur stretch of National Highway 731 and forcing a shutdown of operations.
Subsequently, a resolution was passed and circulated within the local bar stating that no advocate would represent the accused.
Despite the resolution, advocate Manoj Shukla filed a bail application on behalf of the accused, and subsequently, 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 accused then filed a petition before the top court seeking bail, arguing that no lawyer was willing to represent them in the trial court, and also sought a transfer of the case.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta condemned the actions of the Barabanki bar members, who engaged in "hooliganism" by damaging the furniture, etc., of the advocate who had filed the bail application on behalf of the petitioners.
"The facts observed reveal a very unfortunate situation. The legal profession, which was once considered a noble profession, has clearly been tarnished and compromised by the acts of hooliganism that occurred as a result of the incident at the toll plaza on January 14, 2026," the bench said.
"We understand the sense of camaraderie among lawyers, but this does not justify the acts of violence and lawlessness that occurred when a brave lawyer came forward to defend the accused. These deplorable acts of hooliganism must be condemned. The disciplinary body, i.e., the Bar Council of India, is expected to take appropriate action in this regard," the bench said.
The Supreme Court stated that "a mere perusal of the FIR is sufficient to demonstrate that this was not a case where the accused could have been denied bail."
"There is no dispute that the petitioners were performing their duties at the toll plaza where the incident occurred. It is possible that the complainant may have resisted the petitioners' attempt to demand toll (which was rightly done), resulting in a dispute between the complainant and the employees of the toll plaza, i.e., the petitioners herein," the bench said.
The apex court stated that denying bail to the accused and curtailing their liberty for a period exceeding two months is absolutely unjustified and violates their Fundamental Right to Liberty.
"To ensure that the accused receive proper legal representation and a fair trial, we direct that the proceedings arising out of FIR No. 15/2026 shall be transferred to the Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi, for all further actions, i.e., remand, filing of the investigation report, and trial," the bench said.
The Supreme Court stated that the Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh, is responsible for the safety and security of the petitioners and shall ensure that they are duly escorted to a safe location after their release on bail.