Advocate Thekkara Vinod K Raman, representing the petitioner, argued that police officers had unlawfully restrained and assaulted advocates who were participating in a protest demanding legislation similar to a state-level draft. The proposed law aimed to safeguard advocates and their families from crimes such as assault, kidnapping, and unlawful imprisonment. During the protest, several lawyers, including Nitin Shivram Satpute, were reportedly subjected to physical mistreatment, leading to injuries and one lawyer fainting.
Satpute's plea requested action against the police for barricading lawyers during the protest and urged the enactment of an Advocates Protection Act. The plea also sought various safeguards for lawyers, including the introduction of section 353 (A) in the Indian Penal Code (IPC) to specifically address crimes against advocates. Additionally, it sought exemptions for advocates from sections 353 and 332 of the IPC, which relate to assault or criminal force to deter a public servant from performing their duty and causing hurt to deter a public servant from performing their duty, respectively.
The state's counsel, public prosecutor HS Venegavkar, opposed the petition and submitted an affidavit from senior police inspector Nitin Shankar Tadakhe of Azad Maidan Police Station. Venegavkar argued that the protest was largely peaceful and emphasized that police intervention became necessary only when certain protestors attempted to breach barricades and threatened to block the road. He further asserted that the police had provided amenities such as water coolers and filters at the protest site. Regarding the incident where a lawyer fainted, Venegavkar stated it was due to heat and not because of any police assault. He supported this claim with photographs showing police officers assisting the affected advocate and indicated that CCTV footage would support the police's account of the events.
After reviewing the submitted documents and photographs, the court found no substantiation for the petitioner's claims of police misconduct. The bench observed that the police had acted within their lawful authority to uphold order and prevent any escalation during the protest.
“The photographs show a lady constable assisting the fainted advocate, who was taken to a hospital in a police vehicle. There is no evidence of any police assault,” the bench observed in the order dated June 14. The court also highlighted that none of the alleged injured parties had come forward with complaints against the police.
Regarding the petitioner's request for legislative changes aimed at protecting advocates, the court emphasized that such issues are under the jurisdiction of the state and central governments. The petition was therefore dismissed, with the court concluding that the allegations lacked substance and affirming that the police had acted appropriately in managing the protest.
