Following HC Directions, UP Govt Issues Circular Barring Cops From Directly Contacting Parties, Lawyers In Sub-Judice Matters

The guidelines strictly prohibit police personnel from contacting petitioners or their advocates concerned with sub-judice matters without lawful authority and prior sanction from a competent officer or court.

This development comes in the wake of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea, which involves a 90-year-old petitioner from Jaunpur, pending in the Allahabad High Court.

The petitioner had alleged that local police officials had threatened him to withdraw his plea against alleged encroachments on Gaon Sabha land. His advocate had also claimed that the police raided his house in retaliation.

Taking serious note of the allegations on July 11, the High Court had decried the trend of prosecuting agencies targeting lawyers for performing their professional duties.

"This is a trend which has been recently noticed across the Country about Lawyers being investigated in cases which they are arguing in Court. It hits at the very existence of the Judicial System and is so serious that it calls for action by way of criminal contempt to be concluded, if proved, with the award of the harshest penalty possible. It has to be put down with a very heavy hand," the single judge had remarked.

Read more about the case here: 'Undermines Judicial System, Harshest Penalty Required': Allahabad HC Deprecates Trend Of Prosecuting Agencies Targeting Lawyers

Subsequently, during the hearing on July 15, the State sought 10 days to formulate pan-state directions on the issue. Finally, on July 28, the State informed the Court that it had issued a circular in this regard on July 25.

A bench of Justice JJ Munir took on record a personal affidavit filed by the Principal Secretary (Home), UP Govt, along with two circulars dated July 14 and July 25, 2025.

The July 25 circular, addressed to top police and administrative officers across the State, contains 15 detailed instructions. The Court found six of those guidelines [(viii) to (xiii)] to be directly relevant to the issues raised in the PIL.

These guidelines are as follows (translated from Hindi):

(viii) No police officer shall contact a petitioner, complainant, or their family members in any pending petition, PIL, or criminal case without legal backing, statutory procedure, or prior approval from a competent authority. No undue pressure shall be exerted. However, lawful cooperation during investigation may be taken.

(ix) Where a matter is pending before the court, the concerned police officer must maintain complete restraint, impartiality, and neutrality.

(x) Station House Officers shall not interfere in civil or property disputes without explicit permission from the court or a competent authority.

(xi) No police officer shall, without statutory process, legal backing, and permission from a competent officer, contact, question, or visit the home of any advocate representing parties in a case against the State or police. Any necessary communication must be routed through the government counsel or public prosecutor.

(xii) Where the High Court or Supreme Court has passed orders restraining contact or coercive action against any individual, such orders must be strictly followed.

(xiii) If legal action is contemplated against a petitioner, complainant, or their counsel, it must comply with applicable law, rules, and judicial expectations. Prior written approval from a competent court, District Magistrate, Superintendent of Police, or equivalent authority is mandatory.

Notably, the circular issued by the Principal Secretary (Home), UP Govt, acknowledges that even with existing legal provisions and norms, the government continues to receive complaints regarding police conduct that violates constitutional protections and interferes with court proceedings.

Taking on record the guidelines, the Court termed them as 'commendable' and 'laudable', however, it also voiced concerns about their implementation.

"…this Court, not without reason, has apprehensions that the guidelines, like many others, would be forgotten in course of time. They would gather dust with the bureaus of district officials, where, they are meant to be implemented", the bench observed.

Therefore, the Additional Chief Standing Counsel was directed to consult State officials and then make suggestions about how to implement these guidelines consistently and regularly.

The Court also recorded an affidavit by the Superintendent of Police, Jaunpur, regarding disciplinary action against the officers allegedly involved in the intimidation of the petitioner and his lawyer.

The matter will be taken up next on July 31. Advocate Vishnu Kant Tiwari appeared for the petitioner.

In related news, the Supreme Court has also initiated a suo motu case on the issue of investigative agencies summoning advocates over their legal opinion given to clients.

The suo motu case was taken after a bench comprising Justice KV Viswanathan and Justice NK Singh had expressed concerns over the trend of police and investigative agencies summoning advocates, and had referred the matter to the Chief Justice of India.

Recently, the action of the Enforcement Directorate in issuing summons to two Senior Advocates- Arvind Datar and Pratap Venugopal- in respect of the legal advice given by them had led to widespread outrage. Following the protests by the bar associations, the ED withdrew the summons issued to the lawyers and issued a circular that summons to lawyers cannot be issued without the prior permission of the ED Director.

On the last hearing, the Court stressed the need to have guidelines to address the issue of the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and other investigating agencies summoning lawyers over the legal advice given to clients in criminal cases.

Yesterday (July 29), the bar bodies and senior advocates gave the top court several suggestions, including summoning lawyers only after the magistrate's approval and not presuming fees as the crime proceeds.