Bombay High Court Considers Framing Interim Guidelines For Protection Of Advocates From Violence
The Bombay High Court has considered framing interim guidelines for the protection of advocates from violence, harassment, coercion and criminal intimidation till appropriate legislation on the subject is enacted. The Court observed that the issue raised in the public interest litigation was of considerable importance and concerned assaults on advocates affecting the administration of...
The Bombay High Court has considered framing interim guidelines for the protection of advocates from violence, harassment, coercion and criminal intimidation till appropriate legislation on the subject is enacted. The Court observed that the issue raised in the public interest litigation was of considerable importance and concerned assaults on advocates affecting the administration of justice.
A Division Bench of Justices Madhav J. Jamdar and Pravin S. Patil was hearing a public interest litigation filed by the Kolhapur District Bar Association and others seeking measures for the protection of advocates from violence and the enhancement of security at the Kolhapur District Court complex. The PIL arose in the backdrop of incidents involving assault allegations and related proceedings before the Court, including a suo motu contempt petition which was subsequently disposed of after acceptance of an unconditional apology tendered by the contemnor.
The petitioners relied on the Telangana Protection of Advocates Act, 2026 and submitted that incidents involving assaults and intimidation of advocates were increasing in Maharashtra. It was contended that advocates, being officers of the Court, required statutory protection as assaults on advocates directly affect the administration of justice.
Senior Advocate Rajiv Chavan and Advocate Satyavrat Joshi were appointed as amici curiae. They submitted that ordinary provisions under the IPC or the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita were inadequate to address the issue and urged the Court to issue interim protective directions till enactment of a law. The amici curiae placed before the Court a set of proposed guidelines.
The Bar Council of India and the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa supported the demand for protective measures. On the other hand, the Advocate General and the Union of India submitted that a bill concerning advocate protection was already under consideration before the Law Commission and therefore the Court ought not to issue directions in the matter.
The Court noted that several States had already enacted legislation concerning the protection of advocates, including the Karnataka Prohibition of Violence Against Advocates Act, 2023 and the Telangana Advocates Protection Act, 2026. The Bench also recorded the State Government's statement that although Maharashtra had introduced an Advocates' Protection Bill in the State Assembly, consideration of the Bill had been deferred in view of the proposed central legislation.
As regards security at the Kolhapur District Court complex, the Court recorded the State's statement that adequate steps had already been taken and that a proposal for the construction of a police chowki within the court complex had been submitted by the Public Works Department. The Court clarified that the surviving issue in the PIL concerned the framing of measures for the protection of advocates, including the enactment of an Advocate Protection law.
The matter has been posted for further hearing on 18 June 2026.
Case Title: Kolhapur District Bar Association & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. [PIL (ST.) No. 1956 of 2026]