Politics · Global

Protesting lawyers allegedly hurled furniture toward Justice Ajay Bhanot’s courtroom dais

After the Allahabad High Court Bar Association threatened to boycott Justice Ajay Bhanot’s court over an alleged incident involving a lawyer and a police officer, protesting lawyers allegedly threw furniture toward the courtroom dais. A High Court judge called the slogan-shouting contemptuous and ordered CCTV footage examined.

AI-assisted synthesis · Based on 4 outlets' reporting · Article text read from 2 of 4 outletsHow it's made

View timeline · 8 entries

4 outletsLatest reporting Oct 28, 7:30 PM UTC3 min read

Coverage: MixedL 1 · C 1 · R 1 · 1 unrated

What happened

Key facts

On October 27, the Allahabad High Court Bar Association alleged that Justice Ajay Bhanot made a lawyer apologise to a Superintendent of Police after the lawyer objected to the officer sitting in a row reserved for lawyers (per lawchakra.in, thequint.com).
The protest escalated into chaos inside Justice Ajay Bhanot’s courtroom (per thequint.com, lawchakra.in, opindia.com).
Another judge of the High Court called the slogan-shouting “absolutely contemptuous” and ordered CCTV footage to be examined (per lawchakra.in, thequint.com).

The brief

Lawyers protesting at the Allahabad High Court allegedly threw furniture toward a courtroom dais, disrupting proceedings in a demonstration against Justice Ajay Bhanot. The protest followed the Allahabad High Court Bar Association’s threat to boycott Bhanot’s court over an alleged incident involving a lawyer and a police officer.

The Bar Association said the dispute began on October 27. In a letter to the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court, its president, Senior Advocate Dr. C.P. Upadhyay, and general secretary, Santosh Kumar Mishra, alleged that Bhanot made a lawyer apologise to a Superintendent of Police.

The association said the lawyer had objected to the officer sitting in a row reserved for lawyers. The allegation is the association’s account of the earlier courtroom exchange. The association’s letter, sent through the Registrar General, threatened a boycott of Bhanot’s court. Lawchakra reported that the letter was dated October 27.

The Quint also described the protest as following the Bar Association’s boycott call and cited the letter’s warning that lawyers would not hesitate to insult the court if the court insulted a lawyer. Lawchakra reported that lawyers protesting outside the courtroom allegedly flung furniture toward the dais.

The Hindu’s headline likewise described furniture being thrown and proceedings disrupted, while OpIndia’s headline reported furniture being hurled and the High Court considering contempt action. The Quint described the protest as escalating into chaos inside Bhanot’s courtroom.

These accounts establish disruption and furniture-throwing allegations, but do not identify who threw particular items. Another High Court judge called the slogan-shouting “absolutely contemptuous” and ordered CCTV footage examined, Lawchakra reported. That account describes an order to review footage, not a final contempt finding.

Advocate Mannu Sharma told the court the protest concerned the October 27 incident in Bhanot’s court. The competing positions are about conduct and respect in the courtroom: the Bar Association alleged that a lawyer was made to apologise after raising an objection to the officer’s seat, while the other judge condemned the protest’s slogan-shouting.

Advocate Paras Nath Singh urged mutual respect, saying, “Both must respect each other.” The reports describe an escalating dispute between the bar association and the judge, but do not report a final ruling on the underlying allegation or the protest.

Why it matters

Lawyers and court staff at the Allahabad High Court face the immediate cost of disrupted courtroom proceedings during the protest.
The Bar Association’s boycott threat creates a concrete mechanism for further disruption: members may refuse to attend Justice Ajay Bhanot’s court.
The allegation that a lawyer was made to apologise to a Superintendent of Police, and the protest’s alleged furniture-throwing, raise competing concerns about courtroom conduct and institutional respect.

What to watch next

Whether the High Court examines the CCTV footage, as another judge ordered.
Whether the Allahabad High Court Bar Association carries out its threatened boycott of Justice Ajay Bhanot’s court.
Whether the court makes a contempt finding concerning the protest or its slogan-shouting.
Whether the allegation about the October 27 courtroom exchange receives a ruling.

How it's being covered

Coverage analysisShow details

5 source articles · 4 unique outlets

Outlet political mix: Mixed· 1 Left · 1 Center · 1 Right · 1 unrated

Where the outlets are based: Asia 50% · Unknown 50%

Outlet political mix

Mixed

Left

Center

Right

1 outlet

The marker shows coverage balance: each unique outlet counts once. 1 unrated outlet is not included.

Geography

Where the outlets covering this story are based.

4 unique outletsDominant coverage: Asia

All4 Asia2 · 50%Unknown2 · 50%

How we measure coverage

How outlets' accounts compare

3 framing differences · 3 uncorroborated claims · 2 information gaps

The reports repeat the same account with different emphasis; its central claims are not independently confirmed in the reporting Updat3 read.Compared across 2 reports whose article text Updat3 read; 2 other outlets were checked by headline only.

Framing / emphasis differences

Sources emphasise different angles, actors or consequences of the same reporting.

The Quint describes the protest as escalating into chaos inside Justice Ajay Bhanot’s courtroom; Lawchakra says protesters were outside his courtroom and allegedly threw furniture toward the dais.
Lawchakra reports a judge’s contempt characterization and an order to examine CCTV; OpIndia’s headline frames the High Court as considering contempt action.
The alleged apology and seating dispute are attributed to the Bar Association’s account; no opposing account of the October 27 exchange appears.

Updat3: These are differences of emphasis, not disputes about what is reported. They do not show that the reported claims are true.

One-sided or uncorroborated claims

Claims that come from one party or one source family and are not independently corroborated.

Lawchakra says protesters allegedly threw furniture toward the dais, but does not identify who threw individual items.
Another High Court judge called the slogan-shouting “absolutely contemptuous,” according to Lawchakra.
Advocate Paras Nath Singh said, “Both must respect each other,” according to The Quint.

Updat3: Not independently corroborated yet — treat as a claim, not an established fact.

Not established by the reporting

Information the available reporting does not contain or confirm. This is a gap, not a disagreement.

The sources do not report the number of lawyers involved, any injuries, or the extent of damage to courtroom property.
The Bar Association alleged that Justice Ajay Bhanot made a lawyer apologise to a Superintendent of Police; the sources do not report a ruling establishing that allegation.

Updat3: Updat3 cannot conclude anything about this from the current sources.

Timeline

Developments from this story's sources, dated background we compiled and fact-checked, and our earlier coverage. Each row says which.

1861
The British Parliament passed the Indian High Courts Act, authorising the establishment of high courts in India.
Background · compiled and fact-checked by Updat3
1866
The Allahabad High Court was established.
Background · compiled and fact-checked by Updat3
1948
The Allahabad High Court’s jurisdiction expanded to include the former Chief Court of Oudh at Lucknow.
Background · compiled and fact-checked by Updat3
1950
The Constitution of India took effect, including Article 215, which gives High Courts power to punish for contempt.
Background · compiled and fact-checked by Updat3
1961
Parliament passed the Advocates Act, establishing the statutory framework for advocates’ professional regulation.
Background · compiled and fact-checked by Updat3
1971
Parliament passed the Contempt of Courts Act, setting out provisions on civil and criminal contempt.
Background · compiled and fact-checked by Updat3
1998
The Supreme Court ruled in Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India that contempt powers do not replace bar councils’ authority over advocates’ licences.
Background · compiled and fact-checked by Updat3
Oct 27, 2026
AllegedOn October 27, the Allahabad High Court Bar Association alleged that Justice Ajay Bhanot made a lawyer apologise to a Superintendent of Police after the lawyer objected to the officer sitting in a row reserved for lawyers.
Reported in this story's sourcesSource:lawchakra.in

How we got here

Before the October 27, 2026, confrontation, the relevant institutional backdrop was the Allahabad High Court’s role as a constitutional court and the professional relationship between judges and advocates appearing before it.

The court was established in 1866 under letters patent issued pursuant to the Indian High Courts Act of 1861, and its jurisdiction later expanded to include Lucknow’s former Chief Court in 1948. The Allahabad High Court Bar Association represents advocates practising before the court.