When Bar Association Hooliganism Triggers Article 32 Relief

The petitioners were contractual toll collection employees of M/s. Skylark Infra Engineering Pvt. Ltd., posted at the Gotona Bara Toll Plaza on the Lucknow-Sultanpur Highway in District Barabanki. They are permanent residents of Madhya Pradesh. On 14 January 2026, an advocate allegedly refused to pay toll, leading to a verbal spat and scuffle. FIR No. 15/2026 was registered at P.S. Haidergarh under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(3), 109(1), 110, 311 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The petitioners were remanded to judicial custody by the ACJM, Barabanki on 16 January 2026.

What Followed in Barabanki

The District Bar Association, Barabanki passed a resolution that no advocate would represent the accused. The Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh wrote to the Chief Minister urging invocation of the National Security Act against the petitioners, despite the incident being, in the Court's words, a trivial scuffle. When advocate Manoj Shukla nonetheless filed a bail application on 5 February 2026, members of the bar set his office furniture on fire and burnt his effigy. The Court reproduced the Dainik Bhaskar report of 6 February 2026 recording that hundreds of advocates, led by the District Bar Association President, stormed the advocate's desk and set it on fire on the court premises.

Issue Before the Court

Whether Article 32 jurisdiction could be exercised to grant bail and transfer the trial out of Uttar Pradesh when the petitioners had been deprived of legal representation by intimidation from members of the local bar.

Holding

The Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta held that the continued detention of the petitioners for more than two months, while bonafide performing their duties at a toll plaza, was absolutely unjustified and violative of the fundamental right of liberty under Article 21. The complete denial of legal representation warranted the exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 32.

Directions

The Court directed that the petitioners be released forthwith on bail on personal bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned Magistrate. To ensure proper legal representation and a fair trial, the proceedings arising out of FIR No. 15/2026 were transferred to the Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi for remand, filing of investigation result and trial, with liberty to the trial court to impose additional bail conditions. The Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh was made responsible for the petitioners' safety and for escorting them to a safe location upon release. The Court condemned the conduct of the Barabanki bar members and directed the Registry to forward the order to the DGP, Uttar Pradesh and the Bar Council of India for compliance and appropriate action.

Takeaway

Where a local bar collectively obstructs legal representation of accused persons, Article 32 can be invoked to secure both liberty and transfer of trial to a neutral forum.