New Delhi: Out of an active strength of 5,14,439 advocates enrolled in Uttar Pradesh, a total of 4,157 advocates are currently implicated in 5,056 criminal cases across 75 districts and 7 Commissionerates.
The data was noted by the Allahabad High Court as per the information furnished by the Uttar Pradesh Director General of Police.
To insulate trials from the local social and professional influence that these advocates wield, the HC has ordered a “pilot project” for the next five years. Under this plan, all criminal cases involving advocates accused of heinous offences (punishable by more than 7 years) will be transferred en bloc to geographically proximate but “professionally insulated” transferee districts.
Justice Vinod Diwakar noted with “grave concern” that many of these individuals are not first-time offenders, but habitual criminals. The data revealed that 418 advocates are involved in three or more cases, 28 advocates are facing 11 or more cases;126 advocates have 5 to 10 cases; 264 advocates in 3 to 4 cases.
In one illustrative instance of extreme habitual offending, the Court cited the case of an advocate from Mathura, who is facing a staggering 46 FIRs.
“Law dies twice, once when its officers turn criminal, and again when judges choose silence over judicial courage,” said Justice Diwakar detailing a “disquieting state of affairs” where thousands of practicing advocates are embroiled in criminal activities ranging from gangsterism to fraud, while the institutional mechanisms meant to regulate them remain “largely dormant”.
The court’s findings suggest that the very sanctity of the justice-delivery system is under threat from within, describing the current situation as merely the “tip of the iceberg”.
Also Read: Days after ruckus by LLB student, SC proposes new SOP for petitioners arguing own case
The Wazirgunj-Lucknow concentration
The geographical distribution of these cases points to a systemic entrenchment of criminal elements near the seats of power. The Lucknow Commissionerate records the highest number of involved advocates at 917, with 586 cases. A singular, “alarming entry” was noted at the Wazirgunj police station in Lucknow, which alone accounts for 422 advocates and 236 FIRs— more than three times the count of any other single police station in Uttar Pradesh.
Other high-burden areas include Commissionerate Kanpur Nagar: 323 advocates involved in 460 cases. The Bareilly zone has 534 advocates involved in 762 cases. Gorakhpur zone has 359 advocates involved in 476 cases and Commissionerate Varanasi recorded 403 advocates involved in 500 cases.
Curiously, the HC flagged the district of Hardoi, which reported zero cases against advocates across all 26 police stations, as a data point requiring further examination to determine if it reflects a genuine absence of crime or a “gap in data collection”.
Infiltration of ‘mafia elements’
The HC observed that organized gangs of law graduates have entrenched themselves in nearly every district court for the purpose of “executing court decrees, resolving disputes outside the court through coercive means… and actively carrying out the forcible eviction of tenants”.
In some associations, most notably in Gorakhpur and Kanpur, office-bearing positions are held by individuals with established criminal records, it said.
Compounding this criminal infiltration is the revelation of widespread educational fraud. The Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh identified 105 advocates practicing with forged qualifications. The breakdown includes 65 cases of forged LL.B. degrees, 28 cases of forged graduation degrees and 5 cases of forged integrated B.A.LL.B. degrees. Three cases each of forged Intermediate and High School certificates were even recorded.
The University of Allahabad was the most frequently exploited name, used in approximately 52 cases of forgery. Geographically, Prayagraj—the seat of the High Court itself—accounted for nearly half of the identified fraud cases with 49 out of 105 cases.
The court dismissed the Bar Council’s identification of only 105 fake advocates as a “token and superficial exercise”, suggesting the real number is likely far higher given the total number of five lakh advocates.
It criticised the Bar Council for a “consistent pattern of institutional paralysis”. It noted that disciplinary proceedings against 98 advocates were halted simply because the committees dissolved due to elections. Furthermore, the Bar Council admitted that no police verification is conducted during the issuance of Certificates of Practice, a “fundamental and inexcusable gap” that exists in no other regulated profession.
Justice Diwakar emphasised that the bar and bench are the “two wheels of the chariot of justice” and that if one wheel is “run broken, bent, or off its axle, the chariot of justice cannot move; it can only lurch”.
The HC concluded by reminding the legal community that a professional body organised along lines of social identity or criminal power rather than merit, “diminishes itself” and surrenders the very foundation of the rule of law. Justice Diwakar’s order served a final warning: “We exist today only because our institutions still endure.”
(Edited by Tony Rai)