he Bombay High Court (Kolhapur Bench) stressed stronger security at Kolhapur District Court after an advocate assault, noting measures taken but directing further improvements based on committee recommendations to ensure safety within court premises.
The Bombay High Court (Kolhapur Bench) has highlighted the need to tight security at the Kolhapur district court complex after an 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 introduced several measures to enhance security, but added that further improvements are required.
The Court said,
“A perusal of the report submitted by the Committee of Advocates practicing in Kolhapur District Court appointed by this Court shows that still 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 has therefore ordered a joint meeting of local authorities and stakeholders, including members of the bar, to decide on additional steps to tighten security at the district court.
Background of the case:
On March 7, advocate Kajal Sanjay Shelake was assaulted by a litigant, Ashwini Patil, inside the district court complex. The High Court took cognisance of the incident on March 9 after reviewing press reports and registered a suo motu contempt proceeding against Patil.
The Court had observed when taking cognizance,
“Abusing and assaulting an advocate affects the administration of justice. Prima facie, we are satisied that conduct prejudices or interferes with the due course of judicial proceedings and /or obstructs the administration of justice”,
The Court has sought a response from the litigant.
Separately, local bar organisations including the Kolhapur District Bar Association and the Kolhapur High Court Bench Action Committee filed a public interest litigation seeking better protection for advocates on court premises; that PIL has been heard alongside the suo motu contempt matter.
On March 11, the Court constituted a 10-member committee of district court lawyers to recommend security enhancements for the complex. Meanwhile, the Superintendent of Police was directed to continue implementing effective interim measures.
In its March 26 order, the High Court reviewed the committee’s report, which found current arrangements inadequate for daily traffic that includes more than 800–1,200 advocates, about 400 court staff and roughly 2,000 visitors. The committee observed that most police personnel on the premises are court-duty constables whose primary function is case facilitation rather than dedicated security. It also flagged the lack of door-frame metal detectors, noting that police have only hand-held metal detectors.
