It is absolutely in the fitness of things that while striking the right chord, the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled Rajasthan High Court Advocates’ Association, Jodhpur through the Secretary & Ors. vs State of Rajasthan through the Secretary & Ors. in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 23646/2025 that was pronounced just recently on 02/12/2025 in a crucial step took suo motu cognizance most commendably of gross misbehavior and mishandling of a lawyer by the State House Officer (‘SHO’) after a viral video showed a lawyer being assaulted by a Jodhpur SHO and made it crystal clear that police can’t act strongly with lawyers. It must be noted that the Division Bench comprising of Hon’ble The Chief Justice Mr Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Hon’ble Mr Justice Baljinder Singh Sandhu took suo motu cognizance of it and in no uncertain terms while strongly condemning the whole unseemly incident held that the incident is most unfortunate and that the lawyer community has been agitated by it. It was underscored by the Division Bench that advocates and police are essential partners in the justice system and must work with mutual respect.
It is worth paying attention that the suo motu proceedings started after senior advocate Dr Sachin Acharya who is also a Member of the Bar Council of Rajasthan mentioned a news report that was published in Dainik Bhaskar about the misconduct. It must be laid bare that the unpalatable incident pertained to Advocate Bharat Singh Rathore and his wife who are both practicing lawyers and who accompanied a rape survivor to Police Station – Kudi Bhagtasani in Jodhpur. They sharply and rightly objected when they saw a person in civilian clothes recording the victim’s statement improperly without following any proper legal procedure.
When Advocate Bharat and his wife raised serious concerns and reservations of this shoddy process, the SHO allegedly:
- Misbehaved with and assaulted without any provocation Advocate Bharat.
- Locked him inside a room.
- Told the victim not to protest.
- And a lady constable then attempted to remove his wife from the premises.
As it turned out, a video of this confrontation went viral and was shown in Jodhpur High Court. While taking immediate serious note of this imbroglio, the Division Bench promptly summoned:
- Commissioner of Police, Jodhpur – Mr. Om Prakash
- Deputy Commissioner of Police (West)
- Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police
The Commissioner acknowledged the misconduct and assured that an internal inquiry and departmental action would be launched immediately. There has to be zero tolerance for such despicable act by the police officials and must be punished most promptly and so also most strictly so that they don’t consider themselves to be above the law of the land!
It was held by the Division Bench that, “The video reflects that the concerned SHO has actually misbehaved and needs to be trained for soft skills.” It was also underscored by the High Court that hostility between lawyers and the police undermines the justice delivery mechanism. In the fitness of things, the Division Bench asserted rightly that, “Advocates and police personnel are two limbs of the same justice delivery system…there should be mutual respect and mutual cooperation between the two.” It further mandated that while the police often deal with hostile situations and must act firmly with accused persons, the same behaviour cannot be justified when interacting with advocates performing their professional duties.
At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, balanced and bold judgment sets the ball in motion and puts things in perspective by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that, “Learned Senior Advocate Dr. Sachin Acharya, an elected Member of Bar Council of Rajasthan has made a mention of the news item which has been published today in the daily newspaper ‘Dainik Bhaskar’ relating to manhandling and misbehaviour by the SHO, Police Station, Kudi Bhagtasani, Jodhpur. It is stated that a lawyer namely Mr. Bharat Singh Rathore with his wife who is a lady lawyer of this Court had gone to the Police Station along with rape victim who was the prosecutrix. One person in civil clothes and not wearing the uniform was recording the statement of the prosecutrix without following the procedure. The concerned lawyer went to complain to the SHO who instead of redressing the complaint, misbehaved and manhandled the lawyer and shoved him in a room. The lawyer also demanded that the victim should not be called several times to the police station which angered the SHO and he restrained the concerned lawyer in his room. His wife, a lady lawyer insisted that they have a right to demand proper recording of statement and also requested not to manhandle her husband and if he was to be arrested, she demanded that she also should be arrested. The police officials were trying to tell her to go back which she refused. A lady constable also tried to remove her from the place. A video of the incident was shown to the Court.”
As it turned out, the Division Bench enunciates in para 2 observing that, “Taking cognizance of the incident, we asked the Additional Advocate General Mr. Mahaveer Bishnoi, who is present in the Court to summon the Commissioner of Police, Jodhpur and the Deputy Commissioner of Police(West), Jodhpur to remain present at 11:30 AM. A copy of the news item is taken on record as Ex.A. Registry is directed to register this case as D.B Civil Writ Petition(PIL) [Rajasthan High Court Advocates Association & Anr Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.].”
Do note, the Division Bench notes in para 3 that, “Pursuant to the above direction, Mr. Om Prakash, Commissioner of Police, Jodhpur appears in the Court along with Mr. Vinit Bansal, DCP (West) and Mr. Roshan Meena, ADCP, who is an IPS officer.”
Most forthrightly, the Division Bench mandated in para 4 holding that, “The incident, which has been recorded in a video, has become viral, reflects that the concerned SHO has actually misbehaved and as suggested by the Commissioner, needs to be trained for soft skills. The Commissioner has also assured this Court of conducting an inquiry in the matter and if required departmental proceedings would be initiated against the concerned officials, who were responsible for misbehaving with the lawyers, who were representing a cause of victim. The incident is most unfortunate and the lawyer community has been agitated by such incident.”
Most significantly and so also most remarkably, the Division Bench encapsulates in para 5 what constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgment postulating precisely that, “We feel that so far as the advocates and police personnel are concerned, they both are two limbs of the same justice delivery system and are to act in tandem with each other and there should be mutual respect and mutual cooperation between the two. While the police is required to work in difficult situations and has to sometime act strongly with the accused, the same cannot be expected from them when they are dealing with the lawyers. Similarly, lawyers are also expected to deal with the police personnel in a soft manner and with a polite attitude. The present incident which has been brought to our knowledge reflects lack of coordination between the two wings of administration of justice. The police officials are required to be given thorough soft skill training and as assured by the Commissioner of Police, training would be provided not only to the officials at the Commissionerate of Jodhpur but to the other officials also and we expect him to inform about this aspect to the police academy where the police officers are trained. The present incident should reach to a logical conclusion. We would expect the report from the Commissioner on the next date about what further departmental action has been taken against the concerned officials who were present at the time of the incident including the SHO and other constables and staff.”
It would be instructive to note that the Division Bench while citing the relevant case law then hastens to add in para 6 noting that, “For the purpose that in future no such incidents should occur not only in Jodhpur but in other districts in Rajasthan, we deem it apposite to notice that an order was passed earlier way back in 2019 by one of us in the case of Bharat Yadav v. State of Rajasthan, (2019 SCC OnLine Raj 782) and in that case too, a somewhat similar incident had occurred, of-course there the concerned lawyer had been wrongfully detained. The relevant portion of the said order reads as under:
“7. This Court notices that the Apex Court in the case of Harish Uppal v. Union of India has noticed that there are grievances of advocates in relation to the action being taken by the administration at different levels. It also directed that each High Court shall constitute a Grievance Redressal Committee. However, the Grievance Redressal Committee is only at the level of the High Court. The Hon’ble Chief Justice has already constituted such Committee at the Principal Seat, Jodhpur as well as at Jaipur which includes three sitting Judges of the Court and Chairman of the Bar Council, President and Advocate General. Such a Committee although exists at the level of the High Court but the Court appreciates the stand taken by the Counsels that a Coordination Committee at each district level should be functioning so that the matters may not have to travel up to the High Court with regard to issues which can be sorted out at the level of the district alone.
8. It is, therefore, suggested that Shri Rajendra Yadav, Government Counsel shall place before this Court a tentative constitution of such Committee which shall include at least one representative from the respective Bar Association of that district as well as one Member from the judiciary. Apart from the same, there should also be one Official from the concerned police department so that the matter can be examined impartially. The Chairmanship of such a Committee should be given to either the District Judge of the concerned district or to any retired High Court Judge, if need so arises.””
It is also worth noting that the Division Bench notes in para 7 that, “It appears that inspite of the observations made therein, the Coordination Committee, as suggested, has not been actively performing its work. We, therefore, direct that Coordination Committee at each district shall be formed afresh and details of the same shall be communicated to this Court on the next date. Further directions shall be passed thereafter relating as to how the said Committee shall function.”
Further, the Division Bench points out in para 8 that, “At this stage, the Commissioner assures this Court that the action against the concerned officials shall be taken immediately and the same shall be reported to this Court by today evening.”
Furthermore, the Division Bench then directs and holds in para 9 that, “On oral mentioning made by the Bar Associations, let this petition be registered and be listed on 08.12.2025.”
Finally, the Division Bench then concludes by directing and holding in para 10 that, “A copy of this order shall be sent to the Commissioner of Police and Director General of Police.”
In a nutshell, we thus see that the Rajasthan High Court has made it indubitably clear in this notable judgment that police can’t act strongly with lawyers. It also very rationally directed soft skill training for police officials. It must behave even with people properly. Prakash Singh who is a former DGP very rightly points out in his enlightening editorial titled “Police reforms and the making of Viksit Bharat” in Hindustan Times newspaper dated December 4, 2025 that, “Changes in public perception of police would require a comprehensive effort by different segments of society, beginning with the force itself. A sensitive issue concerns the elimination of torture and third-degree methods. Custodial violence not only violates human rights but irreparably damages public trust. The Supreme Court’s directive for installing CCTV cameras in all police stations must be implemented without any further delay. The Supreme Court’s landmark directives in Union of India vs. Prakash Singh laid out a roadmap for reform: State security commission to insulate the police from external pressures, fixed tenure for field officers, establishment of police establishment boards and complaints authorities, and separation of investigation from law-and-order functions. These reforms must be implemented sincerely, not symbolically.” Absolutely right! No denying or disputing it!
Author Bio
