The Supreme Court on Monday expressed grave concern over increasing incidents of violence inside court complexes and said it would frame pan-India stringent guidelines to enhance the security of trial courts, where clashes between lawyers, police personnel, and even criminals disguised as advocates have become a recurring problem.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi observed that “hardened criminals often come to court wearing lawyers’ attire and indulge in violent incidents.” The judges said that police often remain helpless due to the absence of an effective mechanism to verify the identity of persons entering court premises.
“We have seen such incidents happening in Punjab, Haryana and even in Delhi where criminals coming in black robes attack the lawyers or other accused. Police are helpless as there is no mechanism to identify whether they are genuine lawyers or criminals,”
the bench remarked.
The court was hearing a plea filed by the Kerala Police Officers Association, which has challenged an order of the Kerala High Court that requires police to obtain prior permission from the presiding officer of a court before arresting or detaining any person within court premises during working hours.
The Kerala High Court, in an order dated August 19, 2024, had ruled that no person surrendering before a court could be arrested, detained, or apprehended inside the court premises without prior judicial permission. It, however, allowed police to act immediately in emergency situations or while arresting absconding accused in long-pending warrant cases — provided that the presiding officer is informed immediately after the arrest.
The High Court had initiated the case suo motu based on a letter from the Kerala High Court Advocates’ Association, which highlighted an altercation between a lawyer and police personnel at the Ramankary Magistrate Court in Alappuzha. Concerned by the frequency of such confrontations, the High Court prescribed a “Code of Etiquette and Conduct” for law enforcement agencies.
During Monday’s hearing, senior advocate R. Basant, representing the police association, argued that the High Court’s order was too sweeping and failed to account for exceptional circumstances requiring immediate police intervention. Justice Surya Kant asked pointedly whether a person committing murder in court could not be arrested instantly, questioning the rationale of the High Court’s blanket restriction.
The bench said it was widening the scope of the case to address security concerns across India’s trial courts and directed counsel to collect data on violent incidents in court premises nationwide. “Stringent guidelines must be put in place,” the bench said, indicating that the matter will now serve as the basis for formulating comprehensive security measures applicable throughout the country.
The case will be heard next in January 2026.
The issue of courtroom security has drawn attention several times in recent years. In October 2024, clashes broke out between lawyers and a judge in the Ghaziabad District Court, Uttar Pradesh, during a hearing involving a Bar Association member.
Earlier, in September 2021, a major security breach at Delhi’s Rohini Court led to the death of gangster Jitendra Gogi and two of his attackers, who entered the courtroom disguised as lawyers and opened fire — an incident that shocked the legal community and exposed serious lapses in access control.
The Supreme Court’s proposed nationwide framework is expected to address critical gaps — including identity verification at entry points, coordination between bar associations and police, CCTV coverage, and standard operating procedures during emergencies.
By taking suo motu cognizance of the broader issue, the court has signalled that security within judicial precincts is not merely an administrative concern but a matter of institutional integrity. The forthcoming guidelines could mark a decisive step toward ensuring that India’s courts remain spaces of justice, not violence.
