The court recognized the importance of ensuring that statutory provisions are implemented in a timely manner to uphold the rule of law and justice. It acknowledged that while the legislature has the primary responsibility for enacting laws, the executive has the discretion to bring provisions into force, and this discretion must be exercised reasonably and in accordance with the principles of justice and fairness.

In this case, the court observed that the delay in implementing Section 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961, for over 25 years, was unjustified, especially given that other provisions of the Act had been operational for a considerable period. The court emphasized that the purpose of the legislation was to grant advocates the right to practice throughout the territories to which the Act extends, and the non-implementation of this section was a hindrance to the rights of advocates and the effective functioning of the legal profession. Therefore, the court held that it was appropriate to direct the central government to consider, within a reasonable timeframe, whether to bring Section 30 into force, rather than mandating immediate implementation. The court issued a writ of mandamus, requiring the government to consider the matter within six months, with the understanding that the exercise of discretionary power must be just, reasonable, and fair (!) .

Regarding police conduct, the court noted that the unlawful handcuffing of advocates, especially in Delhi, was a matter of concern that warranted judicial attention. It underscored that police authorities must adhere to legal standards and guidelines when resorting to such measures, and any deviation from these standards compromises the dignity and rights of advocates. The court directed the Union of India to issue appropriate instructions to police authorities to prevent unlawful treatment of advocates and to ensure that police actions are in conformity with legal standards (!) .

In conclusion, the court reaffirmed that while the judiciary respects the discretionary powers of the executive, it also has a duty to ensure that such powers are exercised reasonably and in accordance with the principles of justice. The directive to consider the implementation of Section 30 aims to bridge the gap between legislative intent and executive action, promoting the rule of law and safeguarding advocates' rights. The directives concerning police conduct serve to uphold the dignity of advocates and prevent unlawful treatment by law enforcement agencies.