The reported assault on an advocate in Morjim while allegedly facilitating the implementation of judicial directions relating to the demolition of an illegal coastal structure has raised concerns that extend well beyond the circumstances of one unfortunate incident. According to media reports, the advocate sustained serious injuries after being allegedly attacked by a group of persons while accompanying a litigant during the execution of judicial orders. If the allegations are ultimately established through due process of law, the incident should prompt a broader legal discussion. It should not merely be viewed as an isolated criminal act, but as an opportunity to examine whether Goa should enact a dedicated Advocates Protection Act.
The administration of justice does not conclude when a judgment is delivered. It reaches its logical conclusion only when judicial orders are implemented peacefully and effectively. If advocates, litigants or public officials become vulnerable to violence while participating in the execution of court orders, the authority of the judicial system itself risks being diminished. The rule of law cannot flourish where compliance with judicial decisions depends upon personal courage rather than institutional protection.
Advocates serve the administration of justice
An advocate is frequently misunderstood as merely representing the interests of a private client. The law, however, places the profession in a far more significant constitutional position. Advocates function as officers of the court and play an indispensable role in assisting the judiciary in arriving at just conclusions.
The Supreme Court, in Hari Shankar Rastogi v Giridhar Sharma, observed that the Bar constitutes an extension of the system of justice and that an advocate remains accountable not only to the client but also to the court. Similarly, in R Muthukrishnan v Registrar General of the High Court of Judicature at Madras, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that fearlessness, independence and professional integrity are essential attributes of the legal profession. These principles are also reflected in the Statement of Objects and Reasons accompanying the draft Advocates (Protection) Bill, 2021.
Consequently, violence directed against an advocate while performing professional duties is not merely an attack upon an individual practitioner. It has the potential to interfere with the administration of justice itself.
The concern extends beyond the legal profession
Public debate should avoid reducing this issue to a demand for professional privileges. The principal beneficiary of an independent legal profession is not the advocate but the litigant.
Every citizen approaching a court is entitled to fearless legal representation. If lawyers begin to hesitate before accepting sensitive matters involving organised interests, influential parties, environmental disputes, land conflicts or criminal prosecutions because of concerns for personal safety, access to justice itself becomes impaired. The chilling effect of intimidation may discourage advocates from pursuing unpopular causes or enforcing judicial orders that affect powerful interests.
Ultimately, it is the ordinary citizen whose constitutional right to seek justice stands weakened.
International standards already recognise this obligation
The need to protect advocates is not a novel proposition. India participated in the Eighth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders held in Havana in 1990. The Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers require Governments to ensure that lawyers are able to discharge their professional functions without intimidation, harassment or improper interference. They further provide that whenever the security of lawyers is threatened because of the discharge of their professional duties, they should receive adequate protection from the authorities.
These international principles have been expressly relied upon both in the Karnataka legislation and in the draft Advocates (Protection) Bill, 2021 as the foundation for legislative intervention.
Several States have already acted
India has gradually begun recognising that general provisions contained in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and other criminal laws may not sufficiently address violence specifically directed at advocates because of their professional duties.
Rajasthan enacted the Rajasthan Advocates Protection Act in 2023. Karnataka followed with the Karnataka Prohibition of Violence Against Advocates Act, prescribes specific punishment, makes such offences cognisable and introduces procedural safeguards, including requiring the police to intimate the advocate's Bar Association in the event of arrest. More recently, Telangana has also brought into force its own Advocates Protection Act, reflecting a growing recognition that attacks upon lawyers affect the justice delivery system itself.
The absence of a central enactment has therefore prompted individual States to develop statutory mechanisms suited to their own circumstances.
Why Goa should examine similar legislation
Goa experiences litigation involving coastal regulation, environmental protection, illegal constructions, mining, land ownership, inventory proceedings, tourism and public interest litigation. Many of these disputes involve substantial financial interests and occasionally evoke strong public sentiment.
Advocates appearing in such matters should never have to discharge professional responsibilities under the shadow of intimidation or violence. Equally, litigants should not be deprived of effective legal representation because counsel may reasonably fear retaliation for performing professional duties.
This does not suggest that advocates deserve immunity from lawful investigation or prosecution where genuine misconduct exists. Rather, it recognises that violence, coercion and malicious proceedings intended solely to obstruct legal representation deserve a distinct legislative response.
Protection must be balanced with accountability
Any proposal for an Advocates Protection Act in Goa should avoid creating unnecessary privileges. Protection should be carefully confined to acts directly connected with the discharge of professional duties.
Legislation may appropriately provide enhanced punishment for violence intended to obstruct legal representation, establish mechanisms for police protection where credible threats exist, discourage malicious criminal proceedings initiated solely to intimidate advocates, and incorporate judicial oversight to prevent misuse of the statute. The objective should not be to elevate one profession above others but to preserve the integrity of the justice delivery system.
