HC dismisses petition alleging police misconduct during advocates’ protest

Mumbai: The Bombay high court has dismissed a writ petition filed by advocate Nitin Shivram Satpute seeking action against police officers for allegedly manhandling lawyers during a peaceful protest at Azad Maidan on February 2, 2024. The protest was organised in response to the alleged kidnapping and murder of a lawyer couple from Ahmednagar by a client on January 27, 2024.

The petition was heard by a division bench comprising justices Revati Mohite Dere and Shyam C Chandak.

The petitioner, represented by advocate Thekkara Vinod K Raman, argued that the police had illegally restrained and assaulted advocates participating in the protest demanding enactment of a law – along the lines of a state-level draft – to ensure the security and safety of advocates and their families against crimes like assault, kidnapping, and unlawful imprisonment. During the protest, lawyers, including Satpute, were reportedly manhandled, with one lawyer fainting and others sustaining injuries.

Satpute’s plea sought action against the police who had barricaded the lawyers and demanded the enactment of an Advocates Protection Act. It also sought a host of other protections for lawyers, including insertion of section 353 (A) in the Indian Penal Code (IPC) to address crimes against advocates, and exemption of advocates from sections 353 and 332 of the IPC, which pertain to assault or criminal force to deter a public servant from discharging 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 contended that the protest was largely peaceful and that police intervention was necessary only when some protestors attempted to breach barricades and threatened to conduct a road blockade. Venegavkar further stated that the police had provided water coolers and filters at the protest site and that the fainting incident was due to heat, not police assault. He also presented photographs showing police assisting the fainted advocate and argued that CCTV footage would corroborate the police’s version of events.

Upon reviewing the submitted documents and photographs, the court found no evidence supporting the petitioner’s allegations of police misconduct. The bench noted that the police had acted within their authority to maintain order and prevent the protest from escalating.

“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 to protect advocates, the court stated that such matters fall within the purview of the state and central governments. The petition was consequently dismissed, with the court concluding that the allegations lacked substance and that the police had acted appropriately during the protest.