The Kolhapur Bench of the Bombay High Court recently highlighted the urgent need to strengthen security measures at the Kolhapur District Court complex after a woman advocate was assaulted earlier this month.

A Division Bench of Justices Madhav J Jamdar and Pravin S Patil noted that the Superintendent of Police has already implemented several steps to enhance security at the court complex. However, the Bench observed that further improvements are still needed.

On March 7, advocate Kajal Sanjay Shelake was allegedly assaulted by a litigant, Ashwini Patil, within the district court complex. Taking note of the incident from newspaper reports, the Kolhapur Bench of the Bombay High Court initiated suo motu contempt proceedings against the litigant on March 9.

While doing so, the Court observed, “Abusing and assaulting an advocate affects the administration of justice. Prima facie, we are satisfied that such conduct prejudices or interferes with the due course of judicial proceedings and/or obstructs the administration of justice.” The Court also sought a response from the litigant.

Meanwhile, bar bodies, including the Kolhapur District Bar Association and the Kolhapur High Court Bench Action Committee, filed a public interest litigation seeking enhanced safety for advocates within court premises. The PIL was heard along with the suo motu case.

On March 11, the Court constituted a 10-member committee of district court lawyers to recommend measures to improve security at the Kolhapur District Court complex. As an interim measure, the Superintendent of Police was directed to continue taking effective steps to strengthen security.

In its latest order dated March 26, the High Court considered a report submitted by the committee, which highlighted that the existing security arrangements are inadequate for the daily footfall of 800–1,200 advocates, around 400 court staff, and nearly 2,000 visitors.

The committee noted that most police personnel stationed at the court are court duty constables primarily tasked with facilitating cases, rather than ensuring security. It also flagged the absence of door-frame metal detectors, with only hand-held devices currently in use.

In response, the State assured the Court that immediate steps would be taken, including installing door-frame metal detectors.

The Court has now directed that a meeting be convened involving the Superintendent of Police, Kolhapur, the Collector, the Superintending Executive Engineer (PWD), the Registrar of the District Court, and three representatives of the Kolhapur District Advocates’ Bar Association to decide on further security measures.

During the proceedings, the Bar Council of India also raised the issue of an Advocates’ Protection Bill. The State informed the Court that the Advocate General would update the Bench on the Bill’s progress by April 17, the next date of hearing.

Advocate Shrikrishna Ganbavale assisted the Court as amicus curiae, along with advocates VR Patil, Amit Sale, and Swaroop Karade. Government Pleader Neha Bhide, along with advocates Tejas Kapre and Priyanka Rane, appeared for the State.

Advocates Uday Warunjikar, NG Kamble, and Neha Deshpande represented the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa, while advocates Shekhar Jagtap and Sanket Khandagale appeared for the Bar Council of India.