VISHVJEET v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
Supreme Court Transfers Criminal Trial and Grants Bail Following Bar Association's Violent Obstruction of Legal Representation and Violation of Fundamental Rights.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: 2026 INSC 254
Decision Date: 17-03-2026
List of Laws
Constitution of India, Article 32; Constitution of India, Article 21; Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; Professional Ethics and Advocacy; Criminal Procedure - Transfer of Cases
- Facts: The petitioners, contractual toll plaza employees in Barabanki, Uttar Pradesh, were arrested following a scuffle with an advocate who allegedly refused to pay toll charges. After an F.I.R. was registered under various sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the local District Bar Association passed a resolution prohibiting any advocate from representing the accused. When one advocate, Shri Manoj Shukla, filed a bail application, a mob of lawyers committed acts of arson, burning his office furniture and effigy. The Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh further escalated the situation by requesting the invocation of the National Security Act against the petitioners. Consequently, the petitioners were unable to secure legal representation or bail due to the prevailing atmosphere of fear and violence created by the legal fraternity.
- Procedural Posture: The petitioners approached the Supreme Court of India directly by filing a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, seeking bail and the transfer of their criminal case out of the State of Uttar Pradesh.
- Issue: Whether the systematic obstruction of legal representation by the Bar Association and the resulting atmosphere of violence constitute a violation of the petitioners' Fundamental Rights, warranting the exercise of the Supreme Court's extraordinary jurisdiction for bail and transfer of trial.
- Holding: Yes. The Court granted bail to the petitioners and ordered the transfer of the entire criminal proceedings from Barabanki, Uttar Pradesh, to the Tis Hazari Courts in New Delhi to ensure a fair trial and access to legal counsel.
- Reasoning: The Court reasoned that the right to liberty under Article 21 and the right to legal remedies are fundamental. The "hooliganism" and "lawlessness" exhibited by the Bar Association members deprived the petitioners of their right to a fair trial and legal representation. The Court observed that the scuffle appeared trivial and the denial of bail for over two months was unjustified. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that while professional fraternity is understandable, it cannot justify violence or the intimidation of colleagues who perform their professional duty to defend an accused. The transfer was deemed necessary to bypass the hostile environment in Barabanki and protect the petitioners' constitutional rights.
🔒 For Members Only