Armoring advocates: From rhetoric to reality

General criminal laws do not fully capture the distinct vulnerabilities advocates face, given that threats often arise directly from their professional duties and can be politically or economically motivated

Asa former journalist who traded the newsroom for the courtroom a few years ago, I've borne witness to the raw underbelly of India's legal fray. The adrenaline of chasing stories gave way to the solemn duty of defending clients, but the dangers I once reported on as distant headlines soon became personal perils.

None shook me more than the brutal slaying of the advocate couple Gattu Vaman Rao and Nagamani in February 2021. Representing victims of land encroachments and environmental harms, they were killed in broad daylight by those they had challenged legally. Their dying declarations, confirmed by forensic analysis, exposed the threats linked to their professional work. The Supreme Court’s 12th August 2025 order transferring the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) highlights longstanding weaknesses in local law enforcement’s impartiality and promptness.

This tragic episode is not isolated; it reflects a growing national concern over violence targeting legal professionals and has intensified calls for a dedicated Advocates Protection Act to shield those who uphold justice.

Escalating risks and the demand for dedicated legal safeguards:

In the past decade, violence targeting lawyers has sadly become more frequent—ranging from courtroom chaos and mob attacks to premeditated killings—often because lawyers challenge entrenched political, corporate, or criminal interests.

Bar associations in Telangana and elsewhere have vocally demanded laws explicitly protecting advocates. The All India Lawyers Advocacy Group (AILAJ), following prolonged campaigning, drafted a national Advocates Protection Bill in 2021 proposing stringent penalties for assault and intimidation, fast-track investigations, and victim compensation. Though the Bar Council of India also issued the draft bill the same year, the bill languishes in legislative purgatory.

Skeptics note that existing laws like Sections pertaining to attempt to murder, voluntarily causing hurt, and criminal intimidation of the new Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), or the old Indian Penal Code (IPC), coupled with procedural provisions for prompt FIR registration under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (old Code of Criminal Procedure), already criminalise violence against any citizen, including advocates. So why insist on a specialized statute?

Why a specialised advocates’ protection law matters?

General criminal laws do not fully capture the distinct vulnerabilities advocates face, given that threats often arise directly from their professional duties and can be politically or economically motivated.

A dedicated law could institutionalize:

•Strict timelines for investigation—such as FIR registration or filing of charges within 24 hours of complaint.

•Specialised courts or fast-track tribunals focused exclusively on offenses involving legal practitioners.

•Stronger penalties, including imprisonment up to 10 years, higher fines, and mandatory compensation for victims.

•Preventive protections, including police escorts for advocates facing threats and formal threat assessments.

The 2021 Bill’s proposed maximum penalties of up to 10 years’ imprisonment and fines up to ₹ two lakh send a crucial zero-tolerance message in a system often marred by delays and political influences. Vaman Rao’s case tragically exposes these gaps, where local police hesitated amid political pressure, prompting Supreme Court’s intervention.

However, laws alone, regardless of their strength, will not suffice without committed enforcement. Police must be sensitized to prioritize advocates’ security, and bar councils should actively monitor threats to ensure timely action.

A reflection on professional conduct:

While the need to shield advocates from external threats remains pressing, there is also a rising concern about integrity within the profession. Reports have highlighted troubling trends, such as advocates entering settlements in motor accident cases without fully informing clients and sometimes pursuing compensation awards primarily for personal gain. Instances where lawyers take on cases with an agreement to receive a percentage of the proceeds further point to challenges around ethical boundaries. Such practices risk eroding client trust and, over time, can contribute to wider unease and distrust toward the justice system.

Another area requiring careful reflection is the increasing recourse by some advocates and Bar Associations to boycotting courts or disrupting court proceedings as forms of protest. While recognizing the right to protest against perceived injustices, such actions can unintentionally affect the very parties lawyers represent—often vulnerable litigants desperate for timely relief. Interruptions and adjournments caused by collective boycotts of courts can cause delays, increase costs, and impede justice delivery.

Courts are not just professional workplaces but institutions foundational to upholding rights and societal order. When proceedings are disrupted or hearings boycotted, it diminishes access to justice and can erode public confidence in the legal system. It is important that any advocacy for reform be balanced with the duty to uphold professional ethics and ensure client interests remain paramount.

Professional bodies and bar councils must continue to encourage dialogue, ethical training, and responsibility within the legal community, ensuring protests do not compromise justice or client welfare.

Insights from State-level laws:

Several Indian states have taken pioneering steps to protect advocates, though with mixed results:

•Rajasthan Advocates Protection Act (2023):Criminalizes violence against advocates with penalties up to seven years’ imprisonment and fines of ₹50,000, along with compensation provisions. Reports show increased reporting and police engagement but ongoing attacks highlight implementation challenges.

•Karnataka Prohibition of Violence Against Advocates Act (2023):Penalizes assaults or obstructions with up to three years’ imprisonment and ₹1 lakh fines. Improved FIR registrations are noted, yet rural court violence persists.

•Telangana Welfare and Protection Bill (2024):Awaiting enactment amid continuing advocacy.

From demands to deliverables-Closing the implementation gap:

Despite unified demands from bar associations, much remains rhetorical as high-profile attacks provoke protests without sustained legislative or executive follow-through. Bills stall in committees, police investigations delay, and public trust suffers.

Recommendations for meaningful progress-Judiciary’s role:

•Proactively invoke suo motu jurisdiction to expedite cases involving attacks on lawyers.

•Establish fast-track courts dedicated to such cases to ensure timely justice.

•Mandate police oversight and hold officers accountable for delays or lapses.

•Promote structured collaboration with bar councils for intelligence sharing and protection planning.

•Monitor enforcement of protection laws through periodic judicial reviews.

Role of Advocates Associations:

•Maintain comprehensive, transparent data on incidents of violence and threats.

•Lead public interest litigations pressing for legislative and enforcement reforms.

•Sustain continuous engagement with lawmakers and police to institutionalize protective measures.

•Form internal safety and counseling cells to support threatened members.

•Conduct regular training on legal rights, threat management, and security.

•Build alliances with national and international human rights and legal professional organizations to amplify advocacy.

A call beyond catharsis:

Witnessing Vaman Rao's empty chambers, now a shrine of unfulfilled justice, I can't dismiss these demands as mere emotion.

An Advocates Protection Act isn't a silver bullet, but in a system where general laws buckle under pressure, it could fortify the frontlines. Yet, true reform hinges on collective resolve: Legislatures to legislate boldly, executives to execute faithfully, and judiciaries to adjudicate swiftly, apart from the legal community’s own commitment to ethical conduct and professionalism. Globally, we've seen that protecting lawyers isn't charity—it's self-preservation for democracy.

India must urgently enact enforceable laws, implement police and judicial reforms, and nurture a culture that protects legal defenders without compromising the profession’s integrity.

Only through this integrated approach can the rule of law be safeguarded — armoring those who stand as society’s sentinels against injustice.

(The author is former Senior Editor, The Economic Times, and currently practising as an advocate at the Telangana High Court)