On a recent Thursday, the Bombay High Court asserted that the law is impartial and lawyers are not immune to its rules during the hearing of a case that has caught significant attention. Attorneys cannot claim immunity or special privileges from criminal charges under the law. The state government has been commanded to respond to the petition within four weeks, and the next hearing is scheduled for June 11.
In the spotlight is the hearing regarding a petition demanding amendments to the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and declarations to the Union of India. The court stated that Sections 353 and 332 shall not apply to attorneys, shedding light on areas of the IPC regarding assault or criminal force to deter a public servant from duty and causing harm voluntarily to deter a public servant from performing duty, respectively.
Ruling was brought in front of a bench including Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice Manjusha Deshpande. The petitioner's counsel, Vinod Raman, argued that using criminal force to prevent protests was illegal, highlighting a disturbing case where a lawyer couple was abducted and murdered.
To protest against this, lawyers gathered at Azad Maidan on February 2. During the protest, the police allegedly used force against them, causing injuries to several lawyers. The petition seeks action against the involved police officers. Government lawyer Hiten Venegaonkar suggests that the CCTV footage revealed no excessive force. Police barricades were placed to prevent the lawyers from marching to the ministry (state secretariat).
The protests were marked by violence, including an incident involving Nitin Satpute and other lawyers, one of whom reportedly fainted, while others sustained injuries. The petition by Satpute not only demanded action against the officers stopping the lawyers but also called for the implementation of the Advocates Protection Act and the addition of Section 353(a) to the IPC to specifically address crimes against lawyers. Following the hearing, the bench ordered Venegaonkar to file an affidavit in response to the petition and adjourned the hearing till May 16.
