The Bombay High Court, exercising suo motu jurisdiction, has initiated contempt proceedings following the assault of a woman advocate inside the Kolhapur District Court complex on March 7, 2026, and has simultaneously considered a connected public interest litigation seeking enhanced security measures within court premises.
A Division Bench of Justices Madhav J. Jamdar and Pravin S. Patil noted the seriousness of the incident and underscored the need for immediate and comprehensive strengthening of security infrastructure in court complexes. The Court also took on record a PIL filed by multiple bar associations raising concerns over the safety of advocates.
Pursuant to earlier directions, a committee of practicing advocates submitted a detailed report highlighting glaring deficiencies in existing security arrangements. The report revealed that despite a daily footfall of thousands, there was inadequate deployment of security personnel, absence of police presence at key entry points, lack of monitoring in open spaces, no floor-wise security, and virtually no parking surveillance.
The committee recommended a series of urgent measures, including deployment of armed police personnel at all entry and exit points, floor-wise patrolling, installation of door-frame metal detectors and baggage scanners, establishment of a permanent police outpost with a women’s help desk, and upgrading CCTV systems with real-time monitoring and extended storage capacity. It also suggested controlled access through identity verification, installation of panic alarm systems, and regular coordination meetings between court authorities, police, and bar associations.
The State, through an affidavit filed by the Superintendent of Police, informed the Court that immediate steps had already been taken, including increasing the number of deployed police personnel from 42 to 60, introducing handheld metal detectors, enhancing patrolling, and conducting security audits. The police also initiated measures such as QR code-based monitoring, strict attendance protocols, and heightened vigilance within court premises.
While acknowledging these steps, the Court observed that further strengthening of security mechanisms remained necessary. It specifically noted the absence of door-frame metal detectors and directed that additional measures be promptly implemented.
Accordingly, the Court directed the convening of a joint meeting involving the Collector, Superintendent of Police, Public Works Department officials, representatives of the Bar Association, and the District Court administration to ensure coordinated and effective implementation of enhanced security protocols.
The matter will next be taken up on April 17, 2026.
Appearances:
Mr. Shrikrishna Ganbavale and Mr. V. R. Patil, Amicus Curiae in SMCP No. 1 of 2026.
Mr. Shrikrishna Ganbavale, Mr. V. R. Patil and Mr. Amit Sale i/b Mr. Swaroop Karade for the Petitioner in PIL (st) No. 1956/2026.
Ms. Neha Bhide, GP along with Ms. Tejas J. Kapre, AGP for the Respondent-State.
Ms. Priyanka Rane, APP for the Respondent-State.
Dr. Uday Warunjikar (thr. V.C.), Mr. N.G. Kamble and Ms. Neha Deshpande for the
Respondent-Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa.
Mr. Shekhar Jagtap (thr. V.C.) and Mr. Sanket Khandagale for the Respondent-Bar Council of India.