Bombay High Court to examine need for Statewide guidelines to protect lawyers from violence

The Kolhapur Bench of the Bombay High Court has tightened its focus on advocates’ safety, turning squarely to systemic measures for protecting lawyers from violence and harassment in Maharashtra [Kolhapur District Bar Association v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.]

A Division Bench of Justices Madhav J Jamdar and Pravin S Patil recently took note of the submission that an Advocates Protection Bill is in the works, and is being examined by the Law Commission of India.

In view of this, Maharashtra's Advocate General and the Central government's counsel urged the Court not to issue any directions on the same issue for now.

Meanwhile, amici curiae appointed by the Court suggested that it could issue some guidelines for now, until the Bill is enacted into a law.

In an order passed on May 8, the Court noted that the issue required detailed consideration.

Since May 8 marked the last working day before the Court's summer vacations, the Bench adjourned the hearing till June, when the matter is expected to be considered at length.

"As very important issue is raised considerable time will be required for hearing all the learned counsel on this issue, and as today is the last working day before the summer vacation, we defer the hearing on this PIL to 18th June 2026," the order said.

The court-appointed amici curiae have argued that existing penal codes are inadequate to tackle the situation and submitted a blueprint requiring the State and police to ensure advocates can work freely, fairly, and without fear, intimidation, harassment, or interference.

The key suggestions given by the amici curiae include:

1. Establish district-level Advocate Protection Committees headed by the District Collector to time-boundly address lawyers' complaints.

2. Prohibit coercive police actions, including arrests or searches, against advocates without prior scrutiny by a judicial authority.

3. Mandate prompt police protection for lawyers based on immediate threat assessments for advocates facing credible risks over professional work.

4. Require that investigations into violence or obstruction against lawyers be led by an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent.

5. Shield advocates from malicious prosecution, vexatious complaints, and retaliation for discharging their professional duties.

6. Protect privileged client communications from being forcibly disclosed to authorities without a court order.

The Court was hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) petition triggered by a March 7 incident where a lawyer, advocate Kajal Shelake, was assaulted by a litigant on the premises of the Kolhapur district court complex.

The attack exposed severe security gaps, prompting the Court to demand joint stakeholder meetings in earlier hearings.

The State government eventually announced its proposal to construct a dedicated police chowki. Leaders of the Kolhapur District Bar Association also confirmed enhanced police deployment.

The Court noted that the immediate security concerns at the court premises stood largely addressed.

“The only issue which requires consideration in this PIL is concerning measures to be taken by the State Government for protection of advocates from violence, harassment, coercion, criminal intimidation, etc. including enactment of the Advocate Protection Bill," the Bench recorded in a May 6 order.

The Bench had also initiated a suo motu criminal contempt of court case against one Ashwini Nikhil Patil, the litigant accused of assaulting the lawyer. However, on May 6, the Court closed the contempt case after accepting her unconditional apology.

The Court also observed that many States have passed laws to protect lawyers from violence in view of the assaults on advocates. In particular, the Court noted recent protective laws enacted in Karnataka and Telangana.

Advocates Tejpal Ingale, Shrikrishna Ganbavale, Umesh Mankapure, RB Mandlik and Swaroop M Karade appeared for the Kolhapur District Bar Association.

Senior Advocate Rajiv Chavan with Advocate Satyavrat Joshi assisted the Court as amici curiae.

Advocate General Milind Sathe with chief public prosecutor Shishir Hiray, government pleader Neha Bhide and additional government pleader Tejas Kapre appeared for the State of Maharashtra.

Advocates Vijay Killedar, Rahul Rote and Shivraj Jagdale appeared for the Union of India.

Advocates Shekhar Jagtap and Sanket Khandagale appeared for Bar Council of India.

Advocates Uday Warunjikar and Prashant Kamble appeared for the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa.

[Read May 6 and May 8 orders]