Call for an ‘Advocates Protection Act’ in Tamil Nadu
Following increasing incidents of violence against advocates (lawyers), a PIL has been filed in Madurai in the Madras High Court, urging the Tamil Nadu government to bring in a law similar to what some other states (Karnataka, Rajasthan) have enacted, to specifically protect lawyers.
What We Know So Far
- PIL filed in Madurai
Advocate C. Susikumar, an executive member of the Akhila Bharatha Vazhakkarignargal Sangam (Madurai unit), has filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court. - Objective of the PIL
The PIL asks the Tamil Nadu government to enact an Advocates Protection Act, a law specifically designed to protect advocates (lawyers) from violence, threats, and intimidation. The petition argues that attacks on advocates are increasing, and that existing general legal mechanisms are inadequate. - Precedents from other states
- Karnataka passed the Prohibition of Violence Against Advocates Act, 2023.
- Rajasthan also enacted a similar Advocates Protection Act, 2023.
- Recent incidents cited
The petitioner pointed out that at least 13 advocates have been hacked to death between 2010 and 2025 in India. Among recent events is the murder of advocate Pagalavan in Madurai on September 4, 2025. - Current status in court
- The Division Bench of Justices Anita Sumanth and C. Kumarappan has suo motu (on its own motion) added as respondents the State Law Department, the Bar Council of India, and the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu & Puducherry.
- The court has also asked these respondents to file a draft legislation
- Support from legal associations
The Sangam (Akhila Bharatha Vazhakkarignargal) had passed a resolution on August 15 requesting that the state government enact such a law. The petitioner also submitted representations to authorities before the PIL, but no action was taken.
Should Tamil Nadu Enact an Advocates Protection Act?
“Safety vs. Statute: Should Tamil Nadu Pass an Advocates Protection Act?”
In recent years, practicing law in Tamil Nadu, as elsewhere in India, has seen lawyers facing growing threats of violence, harassment, and worse. This week, a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed in the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has renewed calls for a special Advocates Protection Act — a law that would specifically shield advocates from violence and intimidation. With Karnataka and Rajasthan already having passed similar legislation in 2023, the debate in Tamil Nadu has become urgent. Below are arguments for and against such legislation.
Arguments in Favor
- Rising Incidents Demand Special Measures
The petition points to at least 13 murders of lawyers over the last 15 years, including the recent killing of Advocate Pagalavan in Madurai. These are extreme examples, but even non-lethal threats, harassment, or intimidation undermine the ability of advocates to function freely and safely. - Precedent from Other States
Karnataka’s and Rajasthan’s legislation provide useful templates. These states have taken note of the specific nature of risk for advocates (e.g. courtroom confrontations, client/litigant hostility, clashes between legal and extra-legal actors). Such laws can codify protections, perhaps increasing deterrence. - Ensuring Access to Justice
If lawyers feel unsafe, some may reduce their willingness to take sensitive or dangerous cases. Vulnerable litigants could suffer. An act protecting advocates helps safeguard the entire judicial process and public confidence in justice delivery. - Clarity of Legal Consequences
A specific law could define what constitutes violence or intimidation against advocates, prescribe appropriate punishment, set up preventive mechanisms (like rapid response or special complaint cells), and mandate cooperation from police. This clarity can prevent delays, misclassification, or negligence in handling complaints.
Arguments Against / Challenges
- Overlap with Existing Laws
Many acts already criminalize assault, physical harm, or threats (Indian Penal Code, etc.). One could argue that adding another layer might lead to redundancy. Ensuring enforcement of existing laws might be more effective than adding new ones. - Implementation and Enforcement Issues
It’s relatively easy to pass a law; the real question is whether those in power (police, district administration, judiciary) will enforce it. Without proper resources, capacity, monitoring, or political will, a law may become just another formality. - Defining Scope and Potential Misuse
What counts as “violence” or “intimidation”? Does a loud argument in court qualify? Or threatening messages on social media? There’s a risk of overbroad definitions that could hamper free speech or allow advocates to claim protection inappropriately. The law must carefully delineate rights and limitations. - Resource and Institutional Burden
The law might demand special infrastructure — e.g. special police units, fast-track courts, or protection protocols — which have budgetary and administrative costs. States with tight budgets may find this challenging, particularly in rural or remote areas.
Conclusion — A Thought-Provoking Reflection
Tamil Nadu stands at a pivotal moment. By enacting an Advocates Protection Act, the state could send a strong message: that the legal profession is not merely a privilege but a pillar of democracy that must be protected. Yet the success of such legislation will depend less on its existence and more on its enforcement, clarity, and fairness.
If you were designing the law, how would you define “violence” or “intimidation” to ensure protections without opening the door to misuse? What mechanisms would guarantee swift justice if such violence occurs? And perhaps most importantly: can such safeguards restore faith not just among lawyers, but also in the public that the justice system is truly secure and impartial?
If you found this issue interesting, what do you think — will this kind of law really help in Tamil Nadu, or are there better alternatives? Let me know what side you lean toward, and any suggestions you might have.
