Full Breakdown
Allegations of Contempt Lead to Vandalism in Justice Ajay Bhanot’s Courtroom
By Drooid · · How we work
In this breakdown
01
The Alleged Contempt Incident in Courtroom 49
On October 27, the Allahabad High Court Bar Association reported that a dispute arose in courtroom 49 when an advocate asked a Superintendent of Police (SP) to move from a seat that the advocate said was reserved for lawyers. According to the association’s letter, the additional government advocate (Additional Government Advocate (AGA)) rebuked the lawyer and said he would raise the matter with the presiding judge, Justice Ajay Bhanot. The association alleges that Justice Bhanot pointed at the advocate, ordered him to be sent to jail, and then required the lawyer to apologise to the police officer. The association also claims the judge threw a letter belonging to senior advocate V P Srivastava (identified as B P Srivastava in some reports), further insulting the legal fraternity.
02
Background and Context
In Indian courts, a row of seats behind the bench is traditionally reserved for members of the bar, while police and other officials are expected to sit elsewhere. The Bar Association says a separate chair had been placed in Justice Bhanot’s courtroom for police officers and senior officials, a practice it describes as “questionable” and contrary to courtroom protocol. The association’s newly elected office-bearers wrote to Chief Justice Arun Bhansali, seeking intervention over the alleged conduct.
Visual evidence
Images from the story
03
Official Statements & Responses
A bench led by Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, hearing a bail matter in an adjacent courtroom, observed the disruption and described the lawyers’ actions as “interference in court proceedings” that intimidated the judiciary. The bench emphasized that such conduct is “wholly unjustified” and warned that the right to raise slogans does not extend to disrupting other courts’ business. No formal disciplinary action has been announced by the High Court as of this writing.
04
Criticism & Opposition
The Bar Association’s letter characterises Justice Bhanot’s alleged orders as an affront to the dignity of the legal profession. It warns that if no corrective action is taken, its members will boycott the judge’s court. The association also objected to the practice of reserving specific seats for police and senior officials, arguing that it undermines the independence of the bar.
05
Timeline
- October 27 – Alleged incident in courtroom 49 involving a dispute over seating, the judge’s directive to imprison the advocate, and the demand for an apology to the SP.
- October 28 – Lawyers entered Justice Bhanot’s courtroom, raised slogans, and allegedly vandalised tables and chairs, halting proceedings.
06
Conflicting Reports & Gaps
- The senior advocate whose letter was reportedly thrown is named as V P Srivastava in most reports, but one source identifies him as B P Srivastava.
- No independent eyewitness accounts or police reports have been provided to corroborate the Bar Association’s version of events.
07
What’s Next
The Bar Association has urged Chief Justice Bhansali to take “serious note” of the matter and initiate appropriate action. It has also announced a potential boycott of Justice Bhanot’s courtroom pending a response. The High Court has not yet issued a formal order on disciplinary proceedings, leaving the situation unresolved.