Ready with 600 sticks: Lucknow court tense over demolition of lawyers' chambers

Tension continues to escalate in Lucknow following a bulldozer demolition drive targeting lawyers’ chambers near district court premises. The incident has triggered protests, clashes and a near-complete disruption of court functioning. The controversy erupted after the administration launched an anti-encroachment operation in compliance with an order of the Allahabad High Court. According to protesting lawyers, the High Court had directed authorities to remove only 72 chambers. However, they alleged that more than 200 chambers were demolished during the drive, leading to widespread anger among advocates.

The situation turned volatile as lawyers staged protests against the demolition action. Reports of clashes between advocates and police further intensified tensions in the area.

Lawyers alleged that police resorted to lathi-charge during the protest, resulting in injuries to several advocates. While the administration has not issued a detailed public response regarding the allegations, demands for an inquiry into the incident have grown stronger.

Following the confrontation, lawyers announced a boycott of judicial work in district courts, severely affecting daily proceedings and hearings. Litigants and visitors at the court complex have reportedly faced significant inconvenience as multiple cases have either been postponed or adjourned.

The standoff has also sparked wider debate within legal and political circles after claims surfaced that around 600 sticks or batons were allegedly distributed among lawyers associated with the Bar Council. Although no official confirmation regarding the claim has been made, the allegation has further fuelled controversy and public discussion surrounding the ongoing protest.

Lawyers’ organisations maintained that they are not opposing the judiciary or court orders but objected to what they described as “excessive action” beyond the scope of the High Court’s directive.

On the other hand, the administration has defended the demolition drive, stating that the action was carried out strictly in accordance with court instructions and as part of efforts to clear encroachments.

The dispute has created a tense atmosphere around the district court complex, with authorities closely monitoring the situation to prevent further unrest.

Officials indicated that attempts may be made to initiate dialogue between lawyers’ bodies and the administration to restore normalcy. However, no concrete resolution has emerged so far, and the deadlock continues to affect judicial work in the state capital.