The Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed a plea filed by the Central Bar Association, Lucknow, challenging the Allahabad High Court's direction to issue demolition notices against lawyers' chambers allegedly constructed by encroaching upon public land and obstructing roads near the Lucknow District Court complex.

A Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta refused to interfere with the High Court's directions, with Justice Nath taking a strong view that unauthorised constructions cannot be protected merely because they are occupied by members of the Bar.

During the hearing, Justice Nath questioned the location of the structures and the basis on which lawyers were seeking to retain them.

“Where is this construction situated, you tell us first. Why in the main road?” the judge asked.

Justice Nath further observed that unauthorised construction could not be justified on the ground that the occupant was an elected office-bearer of a bar association.

“You indulge in unauthorised construction and then you say I am elected as president of the association and then a member of the governing body and therefore I have a right to continue? No, all demolitions have to take place,” the judge said.

Justice Nath, who had served as a senior judge at the Allahabad High Court, said he had personally seen the situation around the court premises and was aware of the extent to which roads had allegedly been obstructed.

“I have seen it myself, I was there for two years as a senior judge. I know what kind of construction, how the roads have been obstructed, traffic is completely obstructed,” he remarked.

The proceedings arose from the Allahabad High Court's August 6 order concerning around 72 alleged encroachers, most of them advocates, whose chambers and other structures were allegedly built over public pathways or public utility land near the Lucknow District Court complex. The High Court had directed the Lucknow Municipal Corporation to issue notices to the occupants, giving them an opportunity either to vacate the structures or establish a lawful claim over the land and construction. Failing that, demolition was to follow.

The dispute reached the Supreme Court after demolition notices were issued, with the proposed action reportedly scheduled for August 30. The Supreme Court had agreed on Monday to consider the challenge to the High Court order.

During Tuesday's hearing, Senior Advocate Adish Aggarwala suggested that alternative space could perhaps be allotted to the affected lawyers. Counsel also proposed that the dispute be referred to mediation.

Justice Nath, however, appeared unconvinced by the suggestion, questioning whether mediation was an appropriate mechanism in a dispute concerning alleged encroachment by lawyers.

“Mediation with lawyers?” he remarked.

The Bench also stressed the importance of protecting court premises from encroachments. Justice Nath observed that if court premises themselves were encroached upon, the question arose as to who would be responsible for their protection.

He recalled an instance from his judicial experience where, during a visit to a district court, a lawyer had allegedly converted the district judge's designated parking space into a private chamber.

"There is no other way to deal with this. Who is going to protect the court premises. If there encroached upon in this matter who is responsible for the protection? Lawyers don't have any kind of qualms. Once I was visiting a district court, the district judges parking space was converted by a lawyer to his own chamber."

Case : CENTRAL BAR ASSOCIATION v. STATE OF UP | Diary No. 51660-2026