Whether the court should issue interim guidelines for the protection of advocates from violence and harassment pending the enactment of specific legislation by the State or Union government.

JUDGMENT :

1. At the outset, Mr. Ingale and Mr. Ganbavale, learned Counsel appearing for the PIL Petitioners state that they may be granted leave to delete the Petitioner Nos.3 and 4 and further they may be granted leave to implead “Bombay High Court Kolhapur Bench Bar Association” as Petitioner No. 3. Leave as sought is granted. Necessary amendment be carried out forthwith. Re-veriication is dispensed with.

2. The circumstances in which the present PIL was iled and Criminal Suo Motu Contempt Petition No.1 of 2026 was initiated has been set out in earlier orders. The said contempt petition has already been disposed of by order dated 6th May 2026. As far as the PIL is concerned, the following issues are raised:

(i) Security in the Kolhapur District Court complex.

(ii) Measures to be taken by the State Government for protection of advocates from violence, harassment, coercion, criminal intimidation, etc.

3. Mr. Tejpal Ingale, Mr. Ganbavale, Mr. Rajendra Mandlik, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners have relied on the Telangana Protection of Advocates Act, 2026 particularly on the deinition of “violence” as contained in the said Act. All of them submit that in the State of Maharashtra assaults on advocates are on the rise as also various actions as envisaged by the aforesaid acts of violence are increasing.

4. As the issue involved is very important, we have appointed Mr. Rajiv Chavan, learned Senior Advocate as also Mr. Satyavrat Joshi, Advocate as amici curiae in the matter. Both of them have submitted that there is a need to enact such a law and requested the Court to pass appropriate directions till the time such a law is enacted. To substantiate their contention, they have relied on the judgment of the Kerala High Court in the case of Shobha Gopalkrishnan v. State of Kerala, 2019 SCC OnLine Ker 739. They have also relied on the judgment of Madras High Court in the case of Chief Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu v. The Director of Archaeological Survey of India, New Delhi, (Judgment dtd. 2-6-2023 in Review Application (Writ) Nos. 169 & 179 of 2021.) It is submitted by them that the advocates are the oicers of the Court and assault on advocates afects the administration of justice. It is therefore submitted that the ordinary provisions in the Indian Penal Code, 1860 or the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 are inadequate to tackle the situation. Both of them therefore submitted that till the appropriate legislation is enacted, this Court should issue certain directions for the protection of advocates.

5. Mr. Rajiv Chavan, learned Senior Counsel has submitted a note making some suggestions. The said note reads as under :

“Some suggestive guidelines and directions for Guidelines by this Hon’ble Court, which may be directed to be binding in law until suitable legislation is enacted to occupy the field, are as under:

1. Duty of the State and public authorities: It shall be the duty of the State, all police authorities, and all public authorities concerned to ensure that Advocates, who are the officers of the court, are able to discharge their professional duties freely, fairly, and without fear, intimidation, harassment, or interference.

2. Protection against coercive action: No coercive action, including arrest, search, seizure, or summoning of an Advocate in respect of acts done in the course of professional duties, shall be undertaken by any police or investigating agency without prior intimation to, and scrutiny by, a competent judicial authority. In exceptional cases where immediate action is unavoidable, reasons therefor shall be recorded in writing and placed before the jurisdictional court at the earliest opportunity.

3. Privileged communication: No Advocate shall be compelled by any authority to disclose any communication, document, or information protected by professional privilege, including client instructions, legal advice, consultation records, notes, or other confidential material, except in accordance with law and under