Refrain from over-legislation

Rajasthan became the first state in the country to enact legislation for the protection of advocates by passing ‘The Rajasthan Advocates Protection Bill, 2023’. The demand for a separate law for the protection of lawyers is not new. It gets impetus with the recent surge of killings and increasing violence against lawyers, quite recently in Jodhpur.

This act aims to protect advocates from assault, grievous hurt, criminal force, and criminal intimidation and prevent damage to their property. The worrying provision of this act is that the offences in the act have been made cognizable, meaning that police can arrest without a warrant or prior permission of the court.

Do we need a separate Act for the protection of certain classes? The existing legal structure is sufficient to protect professionals in any field. A comparison of this Act with the IPC reveals that the Act does not make any new offences. Moreover, the penalties in the Act are more or less the same as in the IPC. The difference lies in the fact that it makes the imposition of a fine along with imprisonment compulsory in every case. It also places a limit on the fines that can be imposed. In comparison to the IPC, only in cases of assault is the quantum of punishment increased. Following is a comparison between the current Act and the relevant provisions of the IPC:

Section 5(1) of the Act penalises assault with imprisonment of up to two years and a fine of up to Rs 25,000. Whereas, Sec 352 of the IPC penalises assault with imprisonment for up to three months, a fine of up to Rs 500, or both.

Section 5(2) of the Act criminalises grievous hurt with imprisonment up to seven years and a fine of up to Rs 50,000, while Sec 325 of the IPC penalises grievous hurt with a similar term of imprisonment and fine without a specified upper limit.

Section 5 (3) of the Act penalises criminal intimidation with imprisonment of up to two years and a fine of up to Rs 10,000. Similarly, Sec 506 of the IPC gives discretion to the court to impose either imprisonment, a fine, or both.

Section 5 (3) of the Act also criminalises threats to cause death or grievous hurt, to cause destruction to property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for a term that may extend to seven years, with imprisonment up to seven years, and with a fine of up to Rs 20,000. The punishment under Sec. 506 of the IPC is also the same, with discretion on giving imprisonment, a fine, or both, with no upper limit
on fines.

The Act is the prime example of over-legislation. It has only made the existing framework more stringent by either increasing the imprisonment term, imposing a mandatory fine, or both. According to a National Institute of Justice study, increasing the severity of punishment does little to deter crime.

The government’s move to provide separate legislation for the protection of lawyers seems impulsive, as there is no empirical data to support an increase in attacks against them.

Furthermore, while a study by the Indian Medical Association reveals that 75% of doctors in India have faced violence at work, the government is reluctant to provide similar legislation for their protection. It is unfair to classify the value of an advocate’s life as more important than a doctor’s, and no distinction should be made between the two professions.

The parallel study of medical professionals reveals that as many as 19 states have separate laws for the protection of medical professionals, however, these have not led to a decrease in violence. In many states, the police aren’t even aware of these special laws and therefore refuse to file an FIR under them. Therefore, it is our contention that the current laws are enough, and it is the issue of implementation that needs to be looked into rather than bringing in new laws.

(The writers are third-year law students at the National Law University, Jodhpur.)