Supreme Court stays Allahabad HC order on criminal action against two advocates
Synopsis
The Supreme Court has put on hold an Allahabad High Court order that sought criminal prosecution and licence cancellation of two advocates accused of doctoring a land acquisition award to win a favourable interest ruling for their clients. The case — hinging on whether a typed copy added interest clauses absent from the original — tests how courts respond when officers of the court are themselves accused of fraud on the court.
Key Takeaways
The Supreme Court on 24 August stayed the Allahabad High Court's 30 July order directing criminal and disciplinary proceedings against advocates Shiv Kant Mishra and Krishna Kant Mishra .
The High Court had directed its Registrar General to initiate proceedings under Section 340 CrPC and file complaints with the Bar Council of India seeking licence cancellation.
The alleged fraud involved a typed copy of an award dated 26 April 2016 that purportedly added interest clauses of 9% and 15% per annum not present in the original, benefiting landowners in a dispute with the Bareilly Development Authority .
The High Court set aside its earlier 24 May 2024 order and directed recovery of amounts already paid to beneficiaries.
The Supreme Court has listed the matter for further hearing on 12 October .
The Supreme Court on Monday, 24 August stayed the operation of an Allahabad High Court order that had directed criminal and disciplinary proceedings against two advocates accused of misleading the court by submitting a fabricated copy of a land acquisition award. The interim stay was granted while hearing a special leave petition challenging the High Court's directive.
What the Supreme Court Ordered
A Bench of Justices P.K. Mishra and Shree Chandrashekhar passed the interim order on a special leave petition (SLP) filed by advocate Shiv Kant Mishra, one of the two advocates named in the High Court's order. The apex court issued notice on the SLP and directed that the matter be listed for hearing on 12 October. Pending that hearing, the operation of the Allahabad High Court's 30 July order stands stayed in its entirety.
What the Allahabad High Court Had Directed
A Bench of Justices Atul Sreedharan and Kshitij Shailendra of the Allahabad High Court had directed its Registrar General to initiate proceedings under Section 340 of the CrPC against advocates Shiv Kant Mishra and Krishna Kant Mishra. The High Court found that their conduct prima facie constituted an offence under Section 199 of the IPC, punishable under Section 193 for giving false evidence.
The High Court had further directed the Registrar General to file complaints before the Bar Council of India and the state Bar Council seeking cancellation of the licences of both advocates.
The Alleged Fraud: Background
The dispute arose from a matter concerning payment of interest on compensation for land acquired by the Bareilly Development Authority. The High Court, while allowing a review application filed by the authority, found that a typed copy of an award dated 26 April 2016 contained an addition providing for interest at 9 per cent per annum for the first year and 15 per cent thereafter — provisions allegedly absent from the original award.
This typed copy had been produced before a coordinate bench, which relied on it while passing an order on 24 May 2024, directing the authority to pay interest to the landowners from the date of dispossession till the declaration of the award. The Bareilly Development Authority subsequently discovered the alleged discrepancy and moved a review application, prompting a comparison of the original award and the typed copy.
High Court's Findings Against the Advocates
Rejecting the submission that the discrepancy was a typographical error, the Allahabad High Court said: 'A typographical error stands out from an act of deception.' It held that the advocates were aware of the additions and had made the alteration to secure a monetary benefit for their clients, characterising the alleged conduct as 'misfeasance by the counsels'.
The High Court also rejected apologies tendered by the advocates after the alleged conduct came to light, observing that such expressions of remorse could not be treated as genuine. The Bench cautioned that allowing such conduct to go lightly would send a wrong message to the Bar that 'sharp practice is acceptable as long as it remains undetected'. It set aside its earlier 24 May 2024 order on the ground that it had been secured by 'playing fraud on this Court', and directed the Bareilly Development Authority to initiate recovery proceedings for amounts already paid to the beneficiaries.
What Happens Next
With the Supreme Court's stay in place, the Allahabad High Court's directions — including the referral to the Registrar General, the Bar Council complaints, and the recovery directive — are on hold pending the next hearing on 12 October. The case raises significant questions about professional accountability in the legal profession and the courts' powers to address alleged fraud on the judicial process.
Point of View
Invoking 'misfeasance' and rejecting apologies as insincere, signals judicial impatience with what it saw as calculated deception rather than error. The Supreme Court's stay does not exonerate the advocates; it simply preserves the status quo pending fuller argument. What makes this consequential is the Bar Council angle — licence cancellation proceedings, if they proceed, would be among the more serious professional actions in recent memory. The broader message, whichever way the case ultimately goes, is that fabricating or altering documents placed before a court is treated as fraud on the institution itself, not merely a civil wrong between parties.
NationPress
24 Aug 2026
Frequently Asked Questions
Why did the Supreme Court stay the Allahabad High Court order against the two advocates?
The Supreme Court stayed the order on 24 August while hearing a special leave petition filed by advocate Shiv Kant Mishra challenging the High Court's 30 July directive. The stay is interim, preserving the status quo until the next hearing on 12 October, and does not constitute a finding on the merits of the allegations.
What had the Allahabad High Court directed against the two advocates?
The Allahabad High Court directed its Registrar General to initiate proceedings under Section 340 of the CrPC against advocates Shiv Kant Mishra and Krishna Kant Mishra, finding their conduct prima facie constituted an offence under Section 199 of the IPC. It also directed complaints to be filed with the Bar Council of India and the state Bar Council seeking cancellation of their licences.
What is the alleged fraud at the centre of this case?
The Allahabad High Court found that a typed copy of a land acquisition award dated 26 April 2016 contained additions providing for interest at 9 per cent per annum for the first year and 15 per cent thereafter, which were allegedly absent from the original award. This typed copy was used before a coordinate bench to secure an order directing the Bareilly Development Authority to pay interest to landowners.
Who are the advocates named in the Allahabad High Court order?
The two advocates named are Shiv Kant Mishra and Krishna Kant Mishra. Shiv Kant Mishra filed the special leave petition before the Supreme Court challenging the High Court's order.
What happens to the earlier court order and the money paid to beneficiaries?
The Allahabad High Court set aside its earlier order of 24 May 2024 — which had directed the Bareilly Development Authority to pay interest to landowners — on the ground that it was secured by fraud on the court. It also directed the authority to initiate recovery proceedings for amounts already paid. The Supreme Court's stay currently holds all these directions in abeyance pending the 12 October hearing.
