New Delhi, November 10, 2025: The Supreme Court of India has taken serious note of the increasing incidents of violence within court premises across the country and indicated that it will frame pan-India guidelines to strengthen security at trial courts. These incidents, often involving confrontations between lawyers and police personnel, as well as the entry of criminals disguised as legal professionals, have highlighted the urgent need for a robust and uniform security framework in courts to protect litigants, officers, and legal practitioners alike.

The observations were made during a hearing before a bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi, who expressed concern over the growing tendency of hardened criminals to exploit legal procedures by entering courts dressed in lawyers’ attire. According to the bench, such individuals sometimes engage in violent acts against other lawyers, accused persons, or even court staff, leaving police personnel helpless due to the lack of mechanisms to verify whether the persons in question are legitimate members of the legal profession. The bench stressed the necessity of devising comprehensive guidelines for enhancing court security on a nationwide scale.

The hearing was prompted by a plea filed by the Kerala Police Officers Association, which challenged a ruling of the Kerala High Court. The high court’s order had made it mandatory for police officers to obtain prior permission from the presiding officer or the jurisdictional court before arresting, detaining, or apprehending any individual within court premises during working hours. Senior advocate R. Basant, representing the association, argued that the high court’s directions constituted a blanket restriction that did not adequately account for situations requiring immediate police intervention, such as the commission of serious offenses inside the court or the apprehension of absconding accused.

Justice Surya Kant questioned the rationale behind the high court’s order by posing a direct example: if an individual were to commit a murder within the court premises, would the police be unable to take immediate action due to procedural restrictions? He emphasized that emergent situations demand swift police action to prevent the occurrence of cognizable offenses and ensure the safety of all present. The bench observed that while courts have a duty to maintain procedural safeguards, security cannot be compromised to the extent that it hampers the ability of law enforcement to respond effectively to criminal incidents.

In view of these considerations, the Supreme Court asked the Kerala Police Officers Association to compile comprehensive data on violent incidents in courts across India. This data is expected to inform the formulation of nationwide security guidelines that will provide a clear framework for police intervention, while also safeguarding the rights of legal professionals and other court-goers. The bench indicated that these guidelines would be stringent and designed to prevent recurrence of violent clashes within court premises. The matter has been scheduled for further hearing in January 2026.

The Kerala High Court’s original order, passed on August 19, 2024, had prohibited arrests, detentions, or apprehensions within court premises without prior approval from the presiding officer or jurisdictional court, except in specific circumstances. These exceptions included situations where immediate action was required to prevent a cognizable offense or where absconding persons were being apprehended under long-pending warrants. Even in these exceptions, the court had directed that police must intimate the presiding officer immediately after such an arrest.

The high court had issued these directions based on a public interest litigation (PIL) initiated suo motu, following a letter dated September 10, 2024, from the Kerala High Court Advocates’ Association. The letter highlighted an altercation between an advocate and police officials at the magistrate court in Ramankary, Alappuzha district, underscoring a perceived lack of clarity regarding police authority in court premises. The high court noted the increasing frequency of such incidents in Kerala and deemed it necessary to implement guidelines to manage similar situations in the future. In addition, the state government issued a Code of Etiquette and Conduct to guide law enforcement agencies in dealing with matters within court complexes.

The Supreme Court’s intervention comes against a backdrop of serious incidents of violence in court complexes across India. In October 2024, a violent clash occurred at the Ghaziabad district court in Uttar Pradesh, arising from a dispute between lawyers and a judge over a case involving a Bar Association member. The incident highlighted the volatility in court premises when disagreements escalate and adequate security measures are lacking.

Even more dramatic was the case in Rohini, Delhi, on September 24, 2021, where jailed gangster Jitendra Gogi, along with two of his associates, reportedly disguised as lawyers, were killed inside a crowded courtroom during a shootout. The police retaliated with gunfire, resulting in multiple casualties and raising widespread concerns about the vulnerability of court premises to armed attacks. These incidents underscore the critical need for clearly defined security protocols that can be uniformly applied across all courts in India.

The Supreme Court has emphasized that any framework developed must strike a balance between judicial independence, the safety of legal professionals, and the operational authority of police personnel. The guidelines are expected to address multiple aspects of security, including the identification of individuals entering court premises, verification of legal credentials, deployment of security personnel, surveillance mechanisms such as CCTV monitoring, and emergency protocols for incidents of violence. The overarching objective is to prevent disruption of court proceedings while ensuring the safety of everyone within the premises.

Experts note that courts in India have historically been vulnerable to violent incidents due to the combination of crowded spaces, high-stakes litigation, and the presence of individuals involved in criminal enterprises. By standardizing security measures, the Supreme Court aims to prevent misuse of court procedures, protect citizens’ access to justice, and uphold public confidence in the judicial system.

Additionally, the move is expected to provide clear guidance on how police can act during emergencies without the fear of being penalized for overstepping procedural limits. Currently, police officers often face a dilemma when violent incidents occur in courts because of ambiguous rules governing arrests or interventions. The nationwide guidelines will provide a framework for swift action while preserving accountability and transparency.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision to formulate pan-India guidelines for court security reflects the judiciary’s proactive approach toward addressing systemic vulnerabilities. By considering the experiences of incidents in Kerala, Uttar Pradesh, Delhi, and other states, the court aims to create a robust, uniform system that ensures the safety of all stakeholders within court premises, while enabling police to respond effectively to emergencies. The hearing scheduled for January 2026 will provide an opportunity to finalize these measures, which could serve as a model for enhanced security in judicial complexes nationwide.

As India’s legal ecosystem evolves, the emphasis on secure and orderly court operations is increasingly critical. With violent clashes and criminal infiltration in courts becoming a recurring concern, the Supreme Court’s intervention is timely and necessary. The forthcoming guidelines are expected to provide clarity, improve operational readiness, and ensure that the administration of justice is not hindered by preventable security lapses.

---