Bombay High Court Raps Maharashtra Over Delay in Enacting Advocates Protection Law

The Bombay High Court has sharply criticised the Maharashtra government for its failure to enact a law protecting advocates from violence, observing that the state's approach has been "parochial and pedantic" in the face of a serious problem. A Division Bench of Justices Madhav J. Jamdar and Pravin S. Patil, hearing a public interest litigation filed by the Kolhapur District Bar Association, is now considering the issuance of 21-point interim guidelines to fill the legislative vacuum.

The PIL was triggered by the assault on advocate Kajal Shelake at the Kolhapur district court complex in March 2026, an incident that prompted the High Court to take suo motu cognisance of the broader issue of violence against members of the legal profession.

The Kolhapur Assault That Triggered Action

In March 2026, advocate Kajal Shelake was physically assaulted at the Kolhapur district court complex. The incident drew widespread condemnation from bar associations across Maharashtra and renewed calls for dedicated legislation to protect advocates from violence in the course of their professional duties. The Kolhapur District Bar Association filed a public interest litigation before the Bombay High Court, seeking both an investigation into the incident and the enactment of a comprehensive advocates protection law.

The Bombay High Court took suo motu cognisance of the issue, expanding the scope of the PIL beyond the individual assault to address the systemic problem of violence against advocates. The Court noted that assaults on advocates are not isolated incidents but part of a recurring pattern, with court complexes across Maharashtra witnessing physical confrontations, intimidation, and attacks on practicing lawyers. The issue of professional accountability and the role of bar councils in protecting advocates has been a parallel concern at the national level.

States That Already Have Protection Laws

The Bombay High Court drew attention to the fact that several Indian states have already enacted legislation specifically designed to protect advocates from violence. The Court noted three examples in particular.

Karnataka enacted the Karnataka Prohibition of Violence Against Advocates Act, 2023, which criminalises violence against advocates in the course of their professional duties and provides for enhanced penalties. Telangana followed with the Telangana Advocates Protection Act, 2026, which creates specific offences for assaults on advocates and establishes a framework for compensation and speedy trial. Rajasthan has also enacted similar legislation.

The existence of these state-level laws was central to the Court's criticism of Maharashtra. The bench observed that if states like Karnataka and Telangana could enact dedicated protection legislation, Maharashtra's failure to do so reflects a lack of political will rather than a legislative impossibility. The Court pointedly noted that the state government has had ample time to study the models adopted by other states and craft its own framework. Those who face violence can file complaints against advocates or other parties through bar council mechanisms, but the absence of a dedicated protection law leaves a significant gap in the remedial framework.

Maharashtra Government's Response and Court's Criticism

The Maharashtra government's responses to the Court's inquiries were described by the bench as "cold" and reflective of a "parochial and pedantic approach." The state has not provided a concrete timeline for enacting an advocates protection law. Its submissions have focused on existing provisions of the Indian Penal Code (now replaced by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita) and general criminal law remedies, without addressing the need for a dedicated statutory framework.

The Court was not persuaded by the state's reliance on general criminal law. The bench observed that generic provisions dealing with assault and hurt do not adequately address the specific vulnerabilities of advocates, who face violence precisely because of their professional role. Advocates are targeted for representing unpopular clients, opposing powerful parties, or simply being present in volatile court environments. A dedicated protection law recognises this occupational hazard and provides enhanced deterrence and faster remedies.

The Court's criticism also extended to the state's engagement with the PIL process itself. The bench noted that the government's replies lacked seriousness and did not reflect a genuine engagement with the problem. This judicial frustration with government inaction echoes broader concerns about state responsiveness to court directions on legislative and regulatory compliance matters.

The Proposed 21-Point Interim Guidelines

In the absence of legislation, the Bombay High Court is considering the issuance of 21-point interim guidelines to provide some measure of protection to advocates until the Maharashtra legislature acts. While the full text of the proposed guidelines has not been publicly released in final form, reports indicate that they include several significant measures.

One of the most notable proposed guidelines is the requirement of prior judicial scrutiny before the arrest of advocates. This measure would require law enforcement to obtain prior judicial approval before arresting an advocate in connection with incidents arising from the discharge of professional duties. The rationale is to prevent retaliatory arrests aimed at intimidating advocates who are performing their lawful functions. This proposed safeguard echoes broader judicial concerns about arrest procedures and bail rights under BNSS and the need for procedural checks on police power.

Another significant proposal is the establishment of district-level Advocate Protection Committees. These committees would serve as the first point of contact for advocates who face threats or violence, coordinate with police for immediate response, and monitor the investigation and prosecution of cases involving assaults on advocates. The committees would include representatives from the district bar association, the district judiciary, and the district administration.

Other proposed guidelines reportedly address the installation of CCTV cameras in court complexes, the deployment of security personnel at court premises, the creation of a dedicated helpline for advocates facing threats, and the establishment of a fast-track mechanism for the trial of cases involving violence against advocates. The Court has also considered directing the state to study the legislative models adopted by Karnataka, Telangana, and Rajasthan and report back with a concrete timeline for enacting similar legislation in Maharashtra. The broader issue of domestic violence complaint procedures under protective statutes illustrates the precedent for interim judicial guidelines in the absence of specific legislation.

Key Takeaways

The Bombay High Court has strongly criticised Maharashtra for failing to enact an advocates protection law, describing the state's response as "parochial and pedantic." The PIL was triggered by the assault on advocate Kajal Shelake at Kolhapur district court in March 2026. Karnataka (2023), Telangana (2026), and Rajasthan have already enacted dedicated protection laws for advocates. The Court is considering 21-point interim guidelines, including prior judicial scrutiny before arrest of advocates and district-level Advocate Protection Committees.

The proposed guidelines would provide interim protection until Maharashtra enacts dedicated legislation. The case highlights the gap between existing general criminal law provisions and the specific protections needed for legal professionals who face occupational violence. Advocates and those navigating the criminal justice system should follow this matter as it develops, since the interim guidelines, if issued, would set a significant precedent for advocate protection across India.