A recent Allahabad High Court judgment has put the spotlight on the alleged criminal infiltration of Uttar Pradesh’s legal profession after official data revealed that 4,157 advocates are involved in 5,056 criminal cases across 75 districts, seven commissionerates and Government Railway Police jurisdictions in the state.
While hearing Mohammad Kafeel vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, Justice Vinod Diwakar was initially dealing with a petition filed by an Etawah-based advocate seeking action against police personnel, alleging that criminal cases had been falsely registered against him.
However, after calling for records from the Uttar Pradesh Police, the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh and other authorities, the Court expanded its inquiry into criminal cases against advocates, fake enrolments and the functioning of Bar Associations across the state.
The Court ultimately observed that district courts had become breeding grounds for “organised gangs of law graduates”.
Who Are These ‘Organised Gangs Of Law Graduates’?
The High Court isn’t referring to a single organised crime syndicate. Instead, it uses the term to describe groups of advocates who allegedly misuse their legal training, courtroom access and local influence to interfere in disputes outside the judicial process.
According to the Court, “In several Bar Associations – most notably in Gorakhpur and Kanpur – office-bearing positions are held by individuals with established criminal records. F
urthermore, 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.”
The Court’s observations were backed by statewide data submitted by the Uttar Pradesh Police and the Bar Council. Of the 5,14,439 active advocates enrolled with the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh, 4,157 were found to be facing 5,056 criminal cases.
The data also revealed that 418 advocates were involved in three or more criminal cases, 28 advocates had 11 or more cases against them, and one advocate was named in as many as 46 FIRs.
The Court found that the problem was spread across the state. While the Lucknow Commissionerate recorded 917 advocates involved in 586 criminal cases, the Bareilly Zone reported 534 advocates facing 762 cases, Commissionerate Kanpur Nagar had 323 advocates involved in 460 cases, Gorakhpur Zone recorded 359 advocates in 476 cases, and Commissionerate Varanasi reported 403 advocates facing 500 cases.
Among all the figures, the Court found one particularly alarming: “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.”
How Do They Allegedly Operate?
According to the judgment, these groups allegedly use their position as advocates to exert influence beyond the courtroom. Rather than waiting for court decrees to be executed through the legal process, they are accused of settling disputes through coercion, intimidating vulnerable litigants and carrying out forcible evictions.
The Court also expressed concern that advocates accused of serious offences could use their professional networks to influence criminal proceedings in their own districts. It observed that their proximity to witnesses, police officials, court staff and even junior judicial officers could affect the fairness of trials.
The concerns raised in the Kafeel judgment also surfaced in a separate case before the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court. In July 2026, the Bench took suo motu cognisance after Mohd. Shakir alleged that he was assaulted inside the Lucknow district court premises by a group of advocates over a property dispute.
CCTV footage and reports submitted by the District Judge and the Commissioner of Police identified four advocates as the primary accused.
The Bench subsequently ordered an Intelligence Bureau inquiry into the four advocates accused in the Lucknow court violence case, directed them to disclose their assets and ten years’ Income Tax Returns, and observed that it was time to identify the “black sheep” within the legal fraternity.
The Lucknow Bench further observed, “In District Court, Lucknow there are groups of advocates who indulge in property dealing and grabbing and in that process also manipulate and influence court proceedings in their favour or in the favour of litigants who approach them and use all means to ensure the same including pressurizing and threatening advocates from appearing on behalf of the contesting parties and some time attempting to exercise influence upon the court itself by various means.”
The Fake Degree Problem
Returning to the Kafeel judgment, the High Court’s concerns were not limited to criminal cases. It also questioned the integrity of the enrolment process after the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh identified 105 advocates who had allegedly secured enrolment using forged educational qualifications.
These included 65 forged LL.B. degrees, 28 forged graduation degrees, five forged integrated B.A. LLB. degrees, three forged Intermediate certificates, three forged High School certificates, and one forged BCA degree.
Prayagraj alone accounted for 49 of the 105 fake enrolments identified during the verification exercise, while the University of Allahabad was the institution most frequently used in forged educational records.
The Court noted that some of these advocates had been practising since 1991 and 1992, raising questions about how they continued to appear before courts for decades without detection.
“The list of fake-degree advocates includes individuals enrolled as far back as 1991 and 1992. This means the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh failed to detect forged qualifications since 1991. During this entire period, these individuals appeared in courts, filed vakalatnamas, addressed judges, and participated in the administration of justice – all without any legal right to do so.”
The Court observed that every proceeding in which such advocates appeared is “potentially tainted” and amounts to a fraud on the institution because they had no legal right to practise.
It also questioned whether the verification exercise had gone far enough, stating,“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 Court further criticised the absence of police verification before enrolment, calling it “a fundamental and inexcusable gap in the regulatory framework.”
Read more: Violent Clashes Between Advocates And Policemen In Tis Hazari District Court, Advocates Call For Abstinence From Work
Why Is The Judiciary So Concerned?
According to the High Court, “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 a small but powerful and dominant group.”
The Court also suggested that the problem has persisted because many judges have been reluctant to confront it, fearing the influence allegedly enjoyed by such groups.
“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 pressure groups and centres of social and political power-brokerage.”
The Court further observed that the legal profession itself had been infiltrated by elements fundamentally opposed to its purpose.
As per the Court, “The legal profession – whose primary obligation is to uphold the rule of law and assist the administration of justice – has in Uttar Pradesh been infiltrated by elements antithetical to everything it stands for: gangsters, mafias, and individuals who never acquired the educational qualifications that the law requires.”
What Happens Next?
To address these concerns, the High Court directed that criminal trials involving advocates accused of heinous offences punishable with more than seven years’ imprisonment be transferred to neighbouring districts, ordinarily within 100 kilometres of their home district, so that an advocate’s “professional network and personal influence do not extend materially to the transferee district.”
It also asked the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh to initiate disciplinary proceedings against such advocates and directed that FIRs be registered against the 105 advocates found to have obtained enrolment using forged qualifications.
The judgment has already prompted action. In July 2026, the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh directed all Bar Associations in the state to submit details of advocates facing serious criminal cases and warned of action against those that failed to comply.
Justice Diwakar perhaps summed up the Court’s concerns best when he observed, “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.”
Image Credits: Google Images
Sources: The Indian Express, The Print, Hindustan Times
Find the blogger: @diptisadh
This post is tagged under: Allahabad HC, Allahabad High Court, organised gangs of law graduates, UP advocates, Uttar Pradesh lawyers, bar council of Uttar Pradesh, fake law degrees, criminal cases against advocates, Justice Vinod Diwakar, Mohd Kafeel case, Mohd Shakir case, UP district courts, legal profession, court judgement
Disclaimer: We do not own any rights or copyrights to the images used; these images have been sourced from Google. If you require credits or wish to request removal, please contact us via email.
Other Recommendations:
ResearchED: Is Allahabad High Court The New Madras High Court, Thanks To Its Outdated Judgements?
