By Gaurav Arora
Prayagraj (Uttar Pradesh) [India], November 2 : The Allahabad High Court has taken a stern suo motu cognisance of a violent incident involving vandalism and assault inside Courtroom No. 49, terming it a direct attack on the dignity of the judiciary and the rule of law.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Ajay Bhanot and Justice Diwesh Chandra Samant issued a strongly worded 29-page order, addressing the breakdown of order and directing strict administrative and legal actions.
Making strong observations regarding the incident, the Bench remarked that it was difficult to believe whether it was dealing with lawyers or a mob bent on violence. The court categorically stated that violence could not be overlooked in the name of maintaining harmony, warning that appeasement of violence would make courts vulnerable to blackmail.
Highlighting the findings of the Registrar General's inquiry report and accompanying video footage, the High Court confirmed that extensive vandalism occurred and government counsel were assaulted inside the courtroom.
The court has formally recommended to the Chief Justice that criminal contempt proceedings be initiated against the lawyers found responsible for the violence and vandalism.
It also recommended the registration of First Information Reports (FIRs) against individuals who allegedly instigated the violence, hatched a criminal conspiracy, and vandalised the courtroom.
Expressing deep concern over a carefully orchestrated web of half-truths and falsehoods spread online to tarnish the image of the High Court and its judges, the Bench directed the Registrar General to lodge FIRs against creators of false, misleading, and malicious content.
The court also sought directions for blocking and deleting such social media posts, noting that the online frenzy fuelled discontent toward the judiciary and obstructed the legal process.
The entire matter, including recommendations for criminal contempt, FIR registrations, and actions against misleading social media content, has been referred to the Chief Justice for final consideration.