The Allahabad High Court has directed the registration of a criminal contempt case against Vishram Singh, a party-in-person, after finding that his review petition contained contemptuous language against a sitting Judge of the Court. The direction was passed by a Bench comprising Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Kshitij Shailendra while considering the review petition filed against the Bench’s order dated July 9, 2026, which had dismissed a special appeal as not maintainable.
The Bench observed that the review petition filed by Vishram Singh, who was conducting the proceedings in person, was replete with language directed at the learned Single Judge whose judgment had been appealed against and subsequently dismissed. The Court stated that, on the face of it, the language used in the petition was contemptuous.
The Bench specifically referred to averments in the review petition in which the petitioner alleged that orders had been passed ‘fraudulently’, ‘illegally’ and ‘without jurisdiction’. It further noted that the petitioner had claimed that an order was passed through ‘deception’ and that the non-disclosure of certain statements in the order amounted to deceiving him.
The dispute originated from the petitioner’s attempt to appear and argue cases on behalf of litigants despite not being an enrolled advocate. The issue first arose before the Single Judge in September 2025 when Sheel Nidhi Jaiswal sought permission to have Vishram Singh represent and argue his case before the trial court. The trial court had declined the request on the ground that the petitioner was not an enrolled advocate.
Following this, the petitioner approached the High Court and claimed to be a ‘pleader’, seeking permission to appear and argue on behalf of the litigant. During the proceedings, he stated that he was an engineer by profession and had acquired substantial knowledge of law through self-study, claiming to have read and analyzed around 100 Supreme Court judgments and relied upon various constitutional and statutory provisions in support of his plea.
The Single Judge also noted that the petitioner had appeared in several cases before courts in Kanpur as an ‘attorney’ and ‘pleader’. Counsel appearing for the High Court submitted that the petitioner had been appearing in various cases on behalf of clients and sought that he be restrained from appearing in pending as well as fresh matters. The petitioner subsequently undertook that he would not appear for or on behalf of his clients until the disposal of the case. The order was later clarified to permit him to appear in his own cases.
On December 11, 2025, Justice Vinod Diwakar dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner could not appear and plead as a pleader or attorney for and on behalf of litigants as a matter of right in defiance of the provisions of the Advocates Act, 1961. The Court termed the situation as ‘unfortunate and regrettable’ that the petitioner, despite lacking formal legal education or a proper understanding of law, had continued to argue in courts. The Bench remarked that ‘half-baked knowledge of law is akin to a self-inflicted injury, not only to himself but also to the litigants whom he represents, and it ultimately results in a casualty of justice’. It further added that the petitioner was not permitted to take up the legal profession without having complied with the terms of Chapter-III of the Advocates Act, 1961.
The petitioner subsequently challenged the Single Judge’s order through a special appeal. However, on July 9, 2026, a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Kshitij Shailendra dismissed the special appeal as not maintainable, holding that the Single Judge had exercised jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. The Bench noted that the Single Judge had passed an exhaustive 48-page, 78-paragraph order and had relied upon Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952, as well as the Full Bench judgment in Sheet Gupta v. State of U.P.
Following the dismissal of the special appeal, the petitioner filed a review petition in his personal capacity. It was during the consideration of this review petition that the Bench found the language used to be contemptuous and directed the registration of a criminal contempt case.