Court Can Only Interpret Law; Cannot Legislate: Calcutta HC Denies Plea Seeking Enforcement Of Advocates’ Protection Act
The Calcutta High Court observed that it cannot grant the relief sought for the enforcement of the Advocates’ Protection Act since courts can only interpret the law, and not legislate it.
The petitioners had filed a public interest writ petition seeking the enforcement of the legislative measures for protective statutes such as the Advocates’ Protection Act which would provide safeguards for advocates to ensure their ability to perform their professional duties without fear or violence or harassment.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya observed, “If the petitioner seeks for implementation of any law that needs to be done in the manner as provided under the said statute. In the pleading the petitioner indirectly seeks for a direction to frame certain guidelines, this court cannot legislate and the court can only interpret the law…Therefore, at this juncture, relief sought for cannot be granted.”
Advocate Dhruv Gupta appeared for the petitioners, while DSGI Rajdeep Majumder represented the respondents.
The petitioners sought for protection to establish a dedicated monitoring committee or task force to oversee the implementation of the guidelines. Apart from that, the petitioner also sought directions to immediately install and maintain functional CCTV cameras in all the critical areas and to direct the authorities to establish a dedicated cell or mechanism for the prompt registration and investigation of complaints related to threats, harassment or intimidation of advocates.
The High Court observed that implementation of any law had to be done in the manner as provided under the said statute.
“Therefore, it is for the State of West Bengal to come forward with the legislation or adopt any Central legislation or to pass appropriate legislation has done by the other States, namely, the State of Rajasthan which has introduced the Rajasthan Advocates’ Protection Act, 2023,” the Court stated.
However, the Bench granted liberty to the petitioner to pursue the writ petition before the State of West Bengal and “if the representation is submitted to the respondent nos.2 and 3, the same shall be considered in accordance with law.”
Consequently, the Court stated, “The Bar Council of West Bengal shall also submit their views to the Government of West Bengal for appropriate legislation in this regard.”
Accordingly, the High Court disposed of the petition.
Cause Title: Jatiyatabadi Ayinjibi Council & Anr. v. The Union Of India & Ors.
Petitioners: Advocates Sandip Ray, S. Srivastava, Shaondeep Chakraborty, Madhurima Sarkar, Aishwarya Nanda and Urmi Biswas
Respondents: DSGI Rajdeep Majumder; Advocate Samrat Ghosh