Assault on lawyer inside Court premises exposes security gaps, says HC

Recently, in a significant intervention concerning the safety of legal professionals within court premises, the Bombay High Court stepped in to address serious security gaps at the Kolhapur District Court complex following an alarming assault on a woman advocate. The Court, taking suo motu cognisance along with a public interest plea, examined whether the existing security mechanisms were sufficient to safeguard advocates and maintain the integrity of judicial proceedings, bringing into sharp focus serious concerns over institutional preparedness.

The case arose when a woman advocate was allegedly assaulted by a litigant within the district court premises, triggering widespread concern among the legal fraternity. Acting on the incident, the Court not only initiated suo motu contempt proceedings but also considered a PIL filed by local bar bodies seeking enhanced protection for advocates. A committee of practising lawyers was constituted to assess the situation and recommend improvements.

The committee’s report revealed glaring deficiencies, ranging from inadequate police deployment and absence of security at multiple entry points to lack of essential infrastructure such as door-frame metal detectors. Despite certain steps taken by the police, including increased personnel and the use of hand-held detectors, concerns persisted about the overall effectiveness of the arrangements.

The Court observed, “it is further necessary to strengthen the security arrangement at the Kolhapur District Court Complex and important and significant measures are suggested by the said Committee.” The Court also highlighted specific shortcomings, including the absence of door-frame metal detectors despite heavy daily footfall.  Stressing coordinated action, the Bench directed that a joint meeting of key stakeholders, including the Superintendent of Police, district administration, engineers, and bar representatives, be convened to implement necessary improvements.

Consequently, directions were issued to take immediate and structured steps toward strengthening court security.

Case Title: High Court on its own Motion Vs. Ashiwni Nikhil Patil

Case No.: Suo Moto Contempt Petition No. 1 of 2026

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pravin S. Patil, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Madhav J. Jamdar

Advocate for the Petitioner: Adv. Shrikrishna Ganbavale, Adv. V. R. Patil, Adv. Amicus Curiae, Adv. Shrikrishna Ganbavale, Adv. V. R. Patil, Adv. Amit Sale, Adv. Swaroop Karade

Advocate for the Respondent: GP Neha Bhide, AGP Tejas J. Kapre, APP Priyanka Rane, Adv. Uday Warunjikar, Adv. N.G. Kamble, Adv. Neha Deshpande, Adv. Shekhar Jagtap, Adv. Sanket Khandagale

Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com