Explain Rationale For Maintaining 'Supervision' Over An Advocate During Administrative Judge's Visit: High Court To Agra Police Commissioner

“It would be a sad day if a lawyer practising in District Court is not allowed to attend the Court on account of restrictions put by the police authorities over the movements only because the Administrative Judge is to visit the Court,” a bench of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Donadi Ramesh remarked in its order.

Essentially, the bench is dealing with a petition filed by Advocate Mahtab Singh claiming he was detained in his house for over 10 hours (on 15 November, 2024) after serving Section 168 BNSS (Police to prevent cognizable offences) notice to him, so as to prevent him from meeting the Administrative (High Court) Judge until he was present in the Judgeship.

Taking note of the 'unusual' matter, the court had earlier called for a report from the District Judge of Agra and also a clarification as to who had issued instructions to the police to serve notice upon the petitioner or to interfere with his liberties.

In the report, while the District Judge stated that he was not aware of such action of police nor his permission was taken, the bench observed that the matter required a further probe to ascertain as to who exactly ordered action against the petitioner.

The bench has directed the Commissioner of Police to also clarify in his affidavit the policy of monitoring and supervising an advocate's movements during the Administrative Judge's visit and furnish details of such care and caution resorted to by the District Administration during previous visits of the Administrative Judge to the district.

The Court also noted that the only criminal case against the petitioner was in 1988, and the Administrative Judge of the district must have visited numerous times during the last several decades. Thus, the Court has asked the CP to explain and produce records regarding similar action taken against the petitioner during the last ten years.

“We have not heard of an incident in which an advocate is kept under supervision or notices are issued on the apprehension that a cognizable offence could be committed only because 37 year back the petitioner was implicated in a criminal case,” the bench observed in its order.

The concerned police official on whose report the action was taken against the petitioner has also been asked to remain present before the Court along with records.

“The Deputy Commissioner of Police of the concerned zone, who was the highest authority allegedly kept informed of the matter, shall also remain present. This direction is required to ascertain as to whether such action of police is a part of routine exercise or is it a singular case of its own,” the bench remarked in its order as it posted the case for a further hearing on March 18.

For context, the Commissioner of Police has submitted an affidavit to the High Court detailing the police's actions, wherein it has been stated that a leaflet had been circulated by another advocate, urging lawyers (including the petitioner) to meet with the Administrative Judge to raise concerns about issues faced by the legal community.

The police officials, however, apprehended that the petitioner might engage in unconstitutional activities, prompting them to issue a notice under Section 168 BNSS to maintain peace.

Advocate Sandeep Mishra appeared for the petitioner.

Case title - Mahatab Singh vs. State Of Up And 3 Others

Click here to read/download order