The legal profession occupies a unique position in a constitutional democracy. Advocates, as officers of the court, play an indispensable role in the administration of justice and the preservation of the rule of law. In recent years, however, members of the legal fraternity across the country have increasingly reported instances of intimidation, physical assaults, and other forms of harassment arising from the discharge of their professional duties. In Telangana, the brutal murders of advocates such as Vaman Rao & Nagamani (2021), Gade Vijay Reddy (2022), G. Swapna Kumari (2026), Khaja Moinuddin (2026), reignited a long-standing demand from the Bar for a dedicated statutory framework to ensure the safety and protection of advocates.
It is in this backdrop, the Telangana Advocates Protection Act, 2026 (Act 16 of 2026) was enacted by the state legislature to safeguard advocates from violence, criminal intimidation, loss of property etc., However, a critical examination reveals structural inconsistencies, constitutional vulnerabilities, and significant legislative lacunae that considerably dilute the Act's protective efficacy. This article identifies these deficiencies and proposes targeted amendments.
In a recent order of the Telangana High Court, while dismissing a writ petition filed by an advocate seeking protection from coercive action in an alleged fake Government Orders case, Justice T. Madhavi Devi observed:
"The Telangana Advocates Protection Act, 2026 has been enacted for the benefit of advocates, to protect them from the acts of violence, criminal force, criminal intimidation, damage of property and other offences committed against them in the discharge of their professional duties and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. The said enactment is not meant for the purpose of protection of advocates against action for alleged illegal activities carried on by them. Therefore, the protection contemplated under the said Act is not applicable to this case."
Of course, the High Court rightly pointed out that the Act was not intended to protect advocates for their alleged wrongdoing or for acts committed outside their professional capacity. These observations would hold true even without an express mention. However, despite the enactment of a beneficial piece of legislation, the need for such remarks perhaps stems from the lacunae from which the Act suffers. In a way, the above observations may give police officers a licence to completely disregard the positive protections that the Act seeks to afford advocates. The failure of the police to register FIRs is a widespread and persistent issue. Advocates, too, are likely to be added to the growing list of victims of police inaction.
While the legislative intent is laudable, the Act, in its current form, suffers from internal contradictions, enforcement gaps, and structural concerns that must be addressed to make it constitutionally robust, operationally effective, and less vulnerable to judicial scrutiny. Unfortunately, there was very little discussion in the State Assembly while passing the Bill, and as a result, many provisions did not receive the attention and analysis necessary to effectively achieve its objectives. The following are some of the provisions that warrant reconsideration:
Section 4(4): Chilling Effect on Advocacy
Section 4(4) penalises advocates for making false or vexatious complaints under the Act. This provision is fundamentally at odds with the protective purpose of the legislation. Adequate safeguards against false complaints, perjury, and abuse of process already exist under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and BNSS. Introducing a special penal provision exclusively targeting advocates within a statute designed for their protection creates an asymmetric deterrent that may discourage legitimate complaints, particularly against influential individuals.
The most dangerous effect of this anti-advocate provision is that the police can initiate a complainant under this section without any sanction, unlike the mandatory procedure U/s 195(1)(b)(i) Cr.P.C, applicable to invoke offences U/s 211 IPC. [Dev Narayan Gurjar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1322/2023]. Therefore, this provision, which goes beyond the scope of general law and its procedural safeguards, cannot have a place in a statute that seeks to protect the advocates. Section 4(4) should therefore be deleted in its entirety.
Section 8: Absence of Procedural Safeguards for Aggrieved Advocates
Section 8 conspicuously omits any obligation to issue mandatory notice to the aggrieved advocate during proceedings or to accord due consideration to their grievances. The provision should be amended to mandate notice to the aggrieved person in all proceedings under the Act, with their concerns receiving meaningful and recorded consideration by the adjudicating authority.
Section 14: No Additional Protection in Cases of Arrest
Section 14 merely redirects to the arrest procedure prescribed under the BNSS and does not provide any special protection specific to advocates. The provision should be supplemented with a mandatory requirement of prior intimation to the President or Secretary of the concerned Bar Association before the arrest of an advocate.
A central legislation, which is mandatorily applicable and available to every citizen, requires no special mention in a State enactment unless the legislature intends to indicate that no additional protection is being provided despite the objectives of the Act. Furthermore, a State legislation cannot have an overriding effect or dilute the operation of a Central statute is a settled legal position.
Registration of FIRs and Enforcement Mechanisms
The Act fails to provide for mandatory registration of FIRs in offences against advocates, time-bound filing of charge sheets, witness protection mechanisms, departmental accountability for police officers who refuse to register cognizable offences or engage in malicious prosecution, or an independent sanction and oversight mechanism. These must be expressly incorporated, as their absence renders the Act's penal provisions effectively toothless.
Attacks Within Court Premises
The Act does not classify attacks on advocates within court premises as aggravated offences or as acts amounting to contempt of court. Given that advocates are recognised as officers of the court under Section 11 of the Act, any act of violence committed against them while they are discharging professional duties within court premises should attract enhanced punishment and potential liability for contempt of court. Appropriate sanction shall be directed through the Advocate General, with reasons duly recorded.
Protection Against Adverse Orders:
The Act is entirely silent on protection from adverse judicial or quasi-judicial orders when an advocate is a victim of violence and is consequently unable to appear before a court or tribunal. A provision should be inserted expressly prohibiting courts, tribunals, or other forums of practice from passing adverse orders against parties solely because their advocate is prevented from appearing due to an act of violence covered under the Act.
Such a provision may, in certain circumstances, operate differently from procedural provisions contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, or other practice rules. However, suitable procedural accommodations may be adopted within the existing legal framework to achieve the intended protection.
Section 6: Inadequate Compensation Framework
Section 6 limits compensation to the victim compensation scheme available under the BNSS. It does not provide any special or additional relief in the form of interim compensation, reimbursement of medical expenses, restoration of damaged offices, or compensation for loss of professional income. A dedicated rehabilitation and restorative framework would provide the Act with genuine practical value.
Composition of Grievance Committees
The Act also requires serious reconsideration regarding the composition of its grievance committees, as certain provisions may raise concerns relating to constitutional principles and natural justice.
Sections 12(2)(a)(i) and 12(2)(b)(i) designate the sitting Chief Justice and the Principal District Judge as Chairpersons of the State-level and District-level Grievance Committees respectively. This raises concerns regarding separation of powers, institutional independence, and potential conflicts of interest that may necessitate future recusals.
A sitting Chief Justice of a High Court should not ordinarily be made a member of another statutory authority. If an order passed by such an authority is challenged before the High Court, will a co-ordinate Single Judge of the same institution pass an order against the Chief Justice's orders? Or if the statute, or this very provision is challenged, can the Chief Justice decide the matter becoming a judge in his own case? The office of the Chief Justice is a constitutional institution entrusted with distinct constitutional responsibilities. Accordingly, these positions should be substituted with a former Judge of the High Court and a retired District Judge respectively, may be under the recommendations of the Bar-Council or any other appropriate body.
Section 13(3): Broad Immunity to Public Servants
Section 13(3) confers near-absolute immunity upon public servants acting in "good faith", a term that remains undefined under the Act. The provision is susceptible to misuse by the very authorities against whom advocates may seek protection.
The immunity should be limited to acts performed strictly in accordance with prescribed statutory procedures. Additionally, the expression "good faith" should either be precisely defined within the Act or linked to the definition provided under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
Section 4(1): Punishment Quantum Is Disproportionately Low.
The punishment prescribed for violence against an advocate ranges from six months to three years of imprisonment, along with a fine of ₹5,000 to ₹50,000. Considering that advocates are designated as officers of the court under Section 11 of the Act, this punishment appears disproportionately low and inconsistent with comparable offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The minimum term of imprisonment should be enhanced to at least two years, and the fine should be revised proportionately.
Compoundability under section 9 of the Act Undermines Deterrence:
Section 9 makes offences under the Act compoundable with the permission of the court. Allowing private settlements for offences that are otherwise cognizable and non-bailable creates a significant inconsistency and may enable economic or political influence to undermine accountability. Compounding should therefore be restricted in cases involving repeat offenders, organised attacks, or public servants as accused persons. Further, the High Court may be designated as the competent authority for recording such compromises.
CYBER CRIMES:
The Act defines cyber-crime against advocates under Section 2(1)(e), including hacking, defamation, deepfakes, and identity theft. However, it does not create any corresponding offence or prescribe any punishment within Chapter II. As a result, the definition lacks practical enforceability. A dedicated penal provision dealing specifically with cyber offences against advocates is essential. Without such a provision, the definition serves little functional purpose. At the same time, no person shall be punished for criticism or usage of strong language against an advocate and this provision should not lead a path to curtail free speech.
Definition of Family Members
Section 2(1)(f) defines "family members" to include only the spouse, children, parents, and siblings of an advocate. This excludes several categories of individuals who may be equally vulnerable to retaliatory violence, including dependants, adopted children, live-in partners, and certain in-laws. The definition should therefore be broadened in line with the progressive interpretative approach adopted under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
POLICE PROTECTION:
Section 10 provides that the police "may, if deemed necessary", provide protection to an advocate who has reported an offence. The use of the word "may" leaves the entire provision at the discretion of the police, which is often the very authority whose inaction the Act seeks to address.
The provision should be amended by replacing "may" with "shall", coupled with a time-bound obligation to assess the threat and provide protection within twenty-four hours of receiving the complaint having prima facie grave allegations involving general offence under the BNS. Senior officers should also be made accountable for unjustified non-compliance.
If the legislature, in its wisdom, chooses not to replace "may" with "shall", the Act should at least define aggravated forms of violence and habitual offenders, while prescribing mandatory criteria and timelines for considering requests for police protection.
The Telangana Advocates Protection Act, 2026 is, no-doubt a progressive step towards recognising advocates as essential pillars of the justice delivery system who deserve statutory protection. However, its protective purpose is substantially undermined by provisions that penalise advocates, significant enforcement gaps, the absence of meaningful restorative and rehabilitation mechanisms, constitutionally questionable committee structures, and important definitional deficiencies as discussed above.
The amendments suggested above are necessary to transform the Act from a well-intentioned legislative initiative into an effective, constitutionally sound, and operationally viable framework. Only then can it truly fulfil its objective of safeguarding advocates while strengthening the rule of law and preserving the dignity of the legal profession.
Sources:
- https://prsindia.org/files/bills_acts/acts_states/telangana/2026/Act16of2026TG.pdf
- https://telanganatoday.com/telangana-human-rights-commission-seeks-report-on-advocate-swapna-kumari-murder
- https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-orders-cbi-investigation-telangana-lawyer-couple-murder-case-300670
- https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/telangana-high-court/telangana-advocates-protection-act-doesnt-shield-lawyers-from-criminal-investigation-high-court-542467
- https://www.verdictum.in/court-updates/high-courts/rajasthan-high-court/2025rjjp48147-dev-narayan-gurjar-v-state-of-rajasthan-1603299?fbclid=IwY2xjawTZ1v5leHRuA2FlbQIxMQBicmlkETFSM2JSTGRmcE1RS3RWYkYxc3J0YwZhcHBfaWQQMjIyMDM5MTc4ODIwMDg5MgABHoMY8EezdX6UJd8DfpwPQWQ0-mXHLr_NeJqNkLqBVWYzURsQ4E2rCvzSfOvE_aem_AMi0mKcZUP2GidG_4d1zCw
Author is an Advocate practicing at Telangana High Court and is well known for his activism in Human Rights and Socio-Legal analysis. Views are personal.