Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court has held that the state’s law protecting advocates is meant to shield them from violence and intimidation they face while doing their professional work, and cannot be used to block investigation or arrest in criminal cases where lawyers themselves are accused of illegal acts.
Justice T Madhavi Devi dismissed a petition filed by an advocate seeking protection from arrest and other coercive action in a case involving allegedly fake government orders.
“The said enactment is not meant for the purpose of protection of advocates against action for alleged illegal activities carried on by them,” the judge observed, referring to the Telangana Advocates Protection Act, 2026.
The petitioner, named as the 11th accused in a case registered by the Economic Offences Wing of the Cyberabad Police, had sought a court declaration that the authorities were proceeding against him without following mandatory safeguards under the state’s Advocates Protection Act and the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). He wanted the authorities directed to strictly follow due process before taking any coercive action against him.
He argued that he was a practising advocate who had been arrested without following the procedure laid down for lawyers, the offences alleged against him only warranted a formal notice rather than arrest, he was willing to cooperate with the investigation and that the case of fabricating fake government orders was really directed at three other co-accused, with him unnecessarily dragged in.
The state opposed the plea, telling the High Court that the petitioner was not even a practising advocate and was therefore not entitled to protection under the Act in the first place.
It went on to describe him as the “kingpin and principal conspirator” in the alleged conspiracy, accusing him of posing as an Additional Collector and fabricating multiple government orders, official proceedings, government letters and no-objection certificates that were then used by other accused to forge senior officials’ signatures.
The state also pointed out that the High Court had already rejected the petitioner’s anticipatory bail plea on June 22, a separate petition seeking to quash the case against him was still pending and that since the alleged offences carried a jail term of more than seven years, questioning him in custody was necessary for a proper investigation.
Accepting the state’s arguments, the High Court held that the Advocates Protection Act exists to protect lawyers from violence, criminal force, intimidation and similar offences committed against them while carrying out their professional duties, not to grant them immunity when they themselves face allegations of criminal conduct.
The court noted the state’s submission that the investigation was being carried out in line with the procedure laid down under the BNSS, and, given the rejection of his anticipatory bail plea and the seriousness of the charges, found no merit in the petition and dismissed it.
This post was last modified on July 23, 2026 3:05 pm