Lawyers under the gun: Addressing the recent history of security lapses in district courts

In a shocking recent incident at the Lucknow civil court, a gangster was fatally shot by an individual disguised as a lawyer. The perpetrator's actions in a place where litigants seek justice also caused injury to a young child and a policeman on duty.

The murder of gangster Jeeva is not an isolated incident of gun violence in courts. In July, the Tis Hazari District Court in Delhi witnessed a firing when two groups of lawyers, including office bearers of the bar association, allegedly fired shots in the air after an argument.

In April this year, a man dressed as a lawyer attempted to shoot his wife at the Saket Court in New Delhi, but accidentally shot a lawyer in the neck.

In 2019, Darvesh Yadav, who held the distinction of being the first woman President of the Uttar Pradesh Bar Council, was fatally shot inside her chamber.

In September 2021, inside the Shahjahanpur District Court complex in Uttar Pradesh, a lawyer named Bhupendra Pratap Singh was shot and killed.

That same month, three individuals, including gangster Jitender Gogi, were killed inside a courtroom at the Rohini Court Complex premises. Two individuals posing as lawyers shot and killed Gogi before being gunned down by the police.

So why do these incidents continually occur? And what have the Bar and the Bench done so far to address these acts of violence in court premises?

One of the major concerns contributing to the vulnerability of district courts is the inadequacy of safety infrastructure. Outdated security systems, lack of proper surveillance equipment and insufficient security personnel are some of the factors that compromise the safety of court premises.

Added to these, the absence of stringent access control mechanisms and screening procedures for visitors allows unauthorized individuals to enter courtrooms armed with guns.

Following the Rohini court incident in 2021, the Delhi High Court took proactive action by taking suo motu cognizance of the matter to enhance security measures in Delhi courts.

The Court had emphasized on the importance of implementing a comprehensive and fail-safe entrance system at the Delhi High Court and other court complexes in Delhi.

Additionally, the Court had called for the installation of additional metal detectors, the implementation of an under-vehicle surveillance system (UVSS) and training for security personnel.

However, given the latest shootouts at Tis Hazari and Saket, these measures do not seem to have put an end to such incidents.

In 2021, the Bar Council of India (BCI) asked the Supreme Court to invoke its powers under Article 146 of the Constitution to form a specialized security force for protection of judges and lawyers of the higher and subordinate courts.

The Delhi High Court recently this year had directed the Delhi government to consider the draft Advocates Protection Bill, which a coordination committee of All District Courts Bar Associations in the capital had framed.

The direction was passed in a plea filed by Advocates Deepa Joseph and Alpha Phiris Dayal seeking enactment of an Advocates Protection Act for lawyers in the national capital, given the alarming rise in violence against lawyers in Delhi courts.

The petition was filed in the backdrop of the murder of Advocate Virender Narwal, who was shot dead in Dwarka. 

In May this year, Rajasthan became the first State in India to pass a law for protection of lawyers. The Bill aims to prevent offences of assault, grievous hurt, criminal force and criminal intimidation against advocates and damage or loss to their property.

The Bill was passed after the BCI urged the Rajasthan government to pass a law for protection of advocates and their families. The request was made in the backdrop of the gruesome murder of Advocate Jugraj Chauhan in broad daylight and the consequent strike by lawyers.

Most recently, Minister of State for Law and Justice Arjun Ram Meghwal ensured lawyers that the Central government would look into the introduction of a nationwide Advocates Protection Act.

The measures taken by the authorities so far seem to fall short on two counts - one, a lack of implementation of security procedures, and two, a failure to address the larger underlying issues behind the violence.

Bar & Bench spoke to lawyers practicing in various courts to gather their perspectives on the issue.

The recent history of security lapses in courts of northern India goes back a few years. As Senior Advocate Sanjoy Ghose reveals, such incidents occured as far back as in 2011, when a bomb exploded at Gate no 5 of the Delhi High Court. And not much has changed since then.

"I was one of those lawyers who was in the Delhi High Court premises when the bomb exploded near the pass counter at the gate. I heard the explosion and witnessed personally the chaotic situation with judges such as Justice Gita Mittal coming out to inspect the carnage. We, therefore, live continually under the shadows of a threat to our lives and it has almost become an occupational hazard," said Ghose.

Sanjoy Ghose called for a comprehensive overview of the security needs of court premises.

"The courts have unique security requirements and perhaps the time has come to constitute a separate specialized cadre for judicial security, issuance of smart cards for lawyers and streamlining the issuance of passes for litigants and visitors to the court complexes may also be taken up on an urgent basis," he added.

Advocate Tarun Agarwal practicing in Rajasthan also pointed out that shootouts in court complexes in the State are not uncommon.

"In January 2018, unidentified men opened fire on an undertrial in a court in Churu district, resulting in three people, including a lawyer, sustaining bullet injuries. Similarly, in September 2022, a gangster was shot dead in broad daylight outside a court in Rajasthan’s Nagaur district court, which is 50 to 100 meters away from the residences and offices of the district collector and the district SP," he recalled.

In his opinion, enhancing security in court complexes can be accomplished by implementing a system that permits entry only to authorized vehicles displaying appropriate stickers or ID cards.

"In cases where members of the legal fraternity fail to cooperate with security personnel at the gates, it is necessary to report these individuals to the local Bar Association and the Rajasthan Bar Council for appropriate action to be taken," he suggested. 

Delhi lawyer Manu Chaturvedi delved deeper into the underlying causes for such violence, opining,

"The spree of violent assaults and shootings or even the occasional bombing on the premises of the very institutions that serve at the frontline of justice dispensation, betrays a deeper disregard for Rule of Law that has come to affect the very institution responsible for upholding it."

The irony of lawyers being assaulted or even killed in courts for their choice of client or by their clients, is inescapable, he said.

"Such unfortunate incidents may of course be avoided by better security infrastructure in district courts, but the potential of their occurrence cannot be properly diminished without first addressing the sociocultural context in which grassroots dispensation of justice unfurls."

Animesh Upadhyay, a lawyer practising in Uttar Pradesh, elaborated,

"This is because significant criminal trials occur in lower courts, and lawyers frequently interact with individuals from diverse social backgrounds, which exposes them to potential risks. Security lapses in lower courts can pose life-threatening dangers to practicing lawyers in those settings."

Supreme Court Advocate-on-Record Vikram Hegde pointed out that parties often come to court with deep personal animosities that only intensify as litigation progresses.

"Tempers often run high and people are susceptible to a lapse of judgment. This has led to some instances of disputing parties resorting to violence as we saw in the Saket court case. Courts are also the places where persons who may be alleged to have committed grave crimes or politically sensitive offenses are brought out from the security of the jail to a place where they are open to attack by those who hold vendettas against them," he opined.

The obvious answer is to implement more security measures be it scanners, frisking, CCTV cameras, etc. While these measures are necessary, they only treat the symptom, Hegde said.

"The main security that the court has against violence is a promise that the dispute between the parties will be resolved in a lawful manner, in a meaningful timeframe and no party should resort to violence. Thus, the real solution to the problem of violence is to repair the trust that the public has in the rule of law. Perhaps persons would be less tempted to be violent if they are assured of swift punishment in case they turn violent, and timely and lawful redressal for the wrongs suffered by them," he added.

Former magistrate and now Advocate Bharat Chugh said that a major challenge lies in the inconsistent enforcement of security checks at the gates of district courts, particularly concerning litigants. Despite the presence of security checks, individuals wearing black coats and white shirts, even without bands, sometimes do not undergo thorough scrutiny, he added.

"The police officer sitting near the metal detector would just look at you and gesture you to go, not wanting to frisk you because you are a lawyer. This is what the problem really is. I think we as lawyers have lots to do ourselves where we willingly subject ourselves to that in interest of everyone, because the recent incidents have been ones where people wearing a lawyer's coat have really attacked the people inside the court. I think the counsel should be checked just the way the litigants are checked," he added.

Chugh called for a balance between accessibility of justice and security, a system that is open enough for everyone to come and witness court proceedings, and at the same time, is secure.

"I don't think that having a procedure like the one we have in the Supreme Court or the High Courts would be suitable for the district courts, given the sheer number of people who come to district courts. You can't get litigants to make a pass each time they come to courts, but at the same time, showing some sort of ID, proper metal detectors, proper 2-3 point checking inside the district court, should be helpful overall," he suggested.

Recounting the most recent act of violence in Lucknow, Advocate Praveen Kumar Yadav said,

"A few days before this incident, around 20 bikes got burned on account of an electricity spark, leading to chaos in the premises. Back in 2021, there was a blast in the bathrooms of the lower court premises. All these incidents elaborate that the security of lower courts should be tightened, infrastructure issues of the lower courts should be addressed expeditiously and welfare and protection of members of the bar should be prioritized."

Lucknow lawyer Mohd Kumail Haider pointed out that in district courts, individuals of all kinds gain entry without being questioned.

"Such incidents show the need for legislation and it's proper implementation pertaining to Advocates' Welfare and Security Act or anything of that sort. The Indian legal system can only positively thrive if both Bar as well as the Bench and the staff and the litigants are all safe."

Insufficient or outdated camera coverage in district courts, including the Indore District Court, is a significant safety loophole that compromises overall security, mentioned Ritika Goswami, a lawyer practicing in Madhya Pradesh.

She also pointed out the insufficient verification procedures and the lack of strict entry screening protocols.

"This functioning was improved a few years ago, but again has come back to the original position. One more loophole is the limited presence of well-trained security personnel. This can be improved by assigning an appropriate number of trained personnel and reinforcing their roles and responsibilities, which can significantly enhance security," Goswami said.

Though these incidents have been limited to the north of India by and large, Prastut Dalvi, a lawyer from Bombay and now an Advocate-on-Record at the Supreme Court, pointed out lapses in the Bombay High Court as well.

"My recent visit to the Bombay High Court, Principal Bench revealed some security lapses, which, if not addressed, may lead to a serious security breach. Currently, the security measures in the Bombay High Court are only limited to scanning and frisking of an individual and his belongings. There is no provision for identification of litigants. This means that entry to the courtrooms is open to all persons, without any record, and irrespective of their being involved in any case/matter," Dalvi elaborated.