Bombay High Court raps state government for delaying advocates’ protection law

The PIL was filed after the HC took suo motu cognisance of an incident in which an advocate was allegedly assaulted by a litigant at the Kolhapur district court complex in March.

Last month, the HC said that it would consider whether interim directions were required to safeguard advocates in the meantime as Maharashtra is yet to enact the legislation despite having introduced an Advocates’ Protection Bill.

The Central government had told the HC that its proposed legislation was pending before the Law Commission and would take considerable time.

On June 18, the bench heard the state government lawyer argue that the state government would like to wait until concrete steps are taken by the Central government to pass a law on a pan-India basis and urged the court to consider ‘prolonging the matter further until the central government takes steps’. The bench observed that the state’s approach, despite substantive directions in its May 8 order, was ‘very pedantic and parochial’.

The HC noted that despite senior advocate Rajiv Chavan, appointed as amicus curiae (friend of the court) to assist in the matter, and advocate Shrikrishna Ganbavale appearing for the petitioners, having sought appropriate guidelines until such legislation comes into force, ‘the state government has chosen to wait’.

The two lawyers argued that no concrete steps had been taken by the Maharashtra government, even as Karnataka, Rajasthan and Telangana had enacted substantive laws.

Chavan had proposed interim guidelines seeking protection for advocates from threats and arbitrary police action, grievance redressal, time-bound probes into assaults, police protection in threat cases, and safeguards to ensure lawyers can discharge their professional duties without fear.

“If such legislation has been passed in other States, nothing prevents the State of Maharashtra in the present scheme of things and in view of the exigencies brought to its notice from considering passing such a bill…Merely seeking time and keeping the matter pending would serve nobody’s purpose,” the bench noted, adding that the state’s ‘very cold’ reply gave an impression that it was ‘not serious’.

Putting all the parties on notice for the final hearing of the matter on July 24 to consider passing interim directions, the bench noted, “As a Court of law and especially in such matters that affect the larger question of the lawyers’ fraternity, we will have to ultimately test the issue before us and pass appropriate orders.”