The 2020 Lucknow Court Blast

A – Background

On February 13, 2020, Lucknow’s district court complex in Hazratganj—near UP Vidhan Bhavan—became the scene of a shocking incident. A crude bomb exploded outside the chamber of Joint Secretary of the Lucknow Bar Association, Sanjeev Kumar Lodhi, injuring at least two to three lawyers, and raising serious questions about court security .

B – Bomb Details

Investigators found that the attackers hurled multiple sutli (rope) bombs—locally made crude improvised explosive devices (IEDs). One bomb detonated, while two to three additional live bombs were recovered on site .

C – Cause & Motive

Police determined the blast resulted from an intense rivalry between two groups of lawyers. Lodhi mentioned that he had filed complaints against certain judicial officers, accusing Bar Association General Secretary Jeetu Yadav of orchestrating the attack .

D – Damages & Injuries

According to various reports, two to three lawyers sustained minor to moderate injuries during the blast . Despite initial claims of severe injuries, the police later clarified no major harm occurred .

E – Emergency Response

Following the explosion, police, bomb disposal squads, and sniffer dogs were immediately dispatched. The court precinct was sealed off, and forensic teams began investigations .

F – First FIR

Lodhi filed a First Information Report (FIR) at Wazirganj police station, naming Jeetu Yadav and six accomplices with charges including attempt to murder. In retaliation, a counter FIR was also lodged by Yadav’s camp at Qaiserbagh police station .

G – Gatherings & Protests

Lawyers from across Lucknow rallied outside the court, demanding improved security and expressing outrage over escalating violence in legal spaces. The Bar Council of UP even called a strike to pressure authorities .

H – Historical Context

This case followed other alarming incidents: in January 2020, lawyer Shekhar Tripathi was beaten to death, and in December 2019, police were attacked at Bijnore’s court. These violent events prompted Allahabad High Court to mandate enhanced judicial campus security .

I – Investigation

UP Police assembled seven specialized teams to thoroughly probe the incident. Investigations included seizing and examining recovered bombs and reviewing CCTV footage .

J – Judicial Security Concerns

The blast exposed major lapses in court security. CCTV indexing revealed unknown individuals carried weapons and bombs deep into restricted zones—a breach prompting demands for robust safety protocols .

K – Key Players

• Sanjeev Kumar Lodhi – Lawyer, injured, and accuser

• Jeetu Yadav – Bar Association General Secretary, accused

• Naveen Arora – UP Joint Commissioner of Police, overseeing investigation

L – Legal Developments

Lodhi’s FIR led to charges against Yadav’s group. Simultaneously, the Bar Council initiated the process for potential reforms to legally protect lawyers from workplace violence .

M – Media Coverage

Both national and local media outlets—including PTI, India Today, The Federal, NDTV, and Financial Express—covered the story extensively. Reports provided consistent details on the device recovery, injuries, and investigative direction .

N – Notable Quotes

Naveen Arora stated:

“Prima facie, it appears to be a case of mutual rivalry between two groups”—indicating early assessment of a professional dispute .

O – Official Reactions

The incident prompted immediate commitments from UP Police to review and strengthen security at court complexes statewide. Further policy changes were also promised by legal regulatory bodies .

P – Public Safety Ramifications

Beyond the lawyer community, the event alarmed broader public conscience. It posed serious implications for legal proceedings, especially with court safety a fundamental requirement for justice delivery.

Q – Questions Raised

• How did perpetrators bypass security checks?

• Was the rivalry purely professional, or were political undercurrents involved?

• What preventive steps are in place to avoid recurrence?

R – Response from Bar Council

Following intense lobbying, the Bar Council of India advocated for a Lawyers Protection Act, mandating secure environment and deterrence against violence in judicial premises .

S – Security Measures

Post-investigation, authorities introduced tightened entry protocols, enhanced CCTV coverage, and regular bomb threat drills. However, persistent vigil and training remain essential.

T – Timeline Summary

• Feb 13, 2020, ~11:30 AM: Blast occurs

• Same Day: Bomb recovery, FIR filings, seven teams formed

• Next Days: Media coverage, protests, police action plans

U – Upshot

The incident starkly illustrated the dangers of professional feuds escalating into violence within institutions meant for justice, prompting systemic and procedural reforms.

V – Victims

While thankfully no fatalities occurred, several lawyers suffered injuries. This incident underscored vulnerabilities and the urgent need for institutional protection.

W – Wider Impact

This blast drew attention to repeated violence—bombs, beatings, attacks—within UP’s legal spaces, sparking discussions on judicial protection and administrative accountability .

X – X-factor

Unusually, no one except the accused lawyers seemed to hear or sense the blast, hinting at a low-intensity device and strategic timing in a busy chamber corridor .

Y – Your Role (Sarfaraz Khan)

As Sarfaraz Khan, this lecture serves two purposes: to educate your Vocal Media audience and to stress the need for judicial safety reforms—your voice contributes to meaningful discourse.

Z – Zone for Reform

The Lucknow court incident must catalyze a comprehensive overhaul—from physical security to legal protections—to restore trust and ensure lawyers can work without fear.