Telangana Advocates Protection Act Can't Shield Lawyers Accused Of Illegal Activities: High Court

The Telangana High Court has held that the protections under the Telangana Advocates Protection Act, 2026 are intended to safeguard advocates from violence and intimidation faced in the discharge of their professional duties, but cannot be invoked to prevent investigation or arrest in criminal cases alleging illegal acts committed by advocates. [2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 110]The Court accordingly dismissed a writ petition filed by an advocate seeking protection from coercive action in a fake Government Orders case. Dismissing the writ petition, 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." The petitioner, an advocate arrayed as Accused No.11 in Crime No.62 of 2026 registered by the Economic Offences Wing, Cyberabad, sought a declaration that the authorities were proceeding against him without complying with the mandatory safeguards under Section 14 of the Telangana Advocates Protection Act, 2026 and Sections 35 to 62 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). He also sought a direction to the authorities to strictly adhere to the statutory procedure before taking coercive action. The petitioner contended that he was a practising advocate and had been arrested without following the procedure prescribed under the Advocates Protection Act and the BNSS. It was argued that the offences alleged against him required only issuance of a notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS, that he was willing to cooperate with the investigation, and that coercive action was therefore unwarranted. He further submitted that the allegations relating to fabrication of fake Government Orders were primarily against Accused Nos.1 to 3 and that he had been unnecessarily implicated. Opposing the petition, the State submitted that the petitioner was not entitled to protection under the Advocates Protection Act as he was not a practising advocate. It further contended that the investigation revealed him to be the "kingpin and principal conspirator" in the alleged conspiracy. According to the prosecution, he had projected himself as an Additional Collector, fabricated Government Orders bearing G.O.Ms. Nos.552 to 555 and 558, forged official proceedings, fake government letters and No-Objection Certificates, which were subsequently used by other accused to forge the signatures of senior government officials. The State also pointed out that the petitioner's anticipatory bail application had already been dismissed by the High Court on June 22, 2026, while his petition seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings remained pending. It further submitted that the offences alleged carried punishment exceeding seven years' imprisonment and that custodial interrogation was necessary for an effective investigation. Accepting the State's submissions, the High Court held that the Advocates Protection Act was enacted to protect advocates from violence, criminal force, intimidation and similar offences committed against them while discharging their professional duties. It observed that the statute was not intended to confer immunity upon advocates facing investigation for alleged criminal activities. The Court further noted the State's submission that the investigation was being conducted in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Sections 35 to 62 of the BNSS. In view of the dismissal of the petitioner's anticipatory bail application and the nature of the allegations, the Court found no merit in the writ petition and dismissed it. Case Title: Karanam Rajesh Kumar v. State of Telangana & Ors. Case No.: W.P. No. 20568 of 2026 Appearance: Learned counsel for the petitioner; Assistant Government Pleader for Home for respondents No.1 to 5. Click here to read/download the orderCitation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 110

Telangana Advocates Protection Act Can't Shield Lawyers Accused Of Illegal Activities: High Court

Ananya Tangri

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Ananya Tangri

Telangana Advocates Protection Act Can't Shield Lawyers Accused Of Illegal Activities: High Court

Ananya Tangri

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Ananya Tangri

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers