Telangana HC: Advocates Protection Act Does Not Shield Lawyers Accused of Illegal Activities
The Telangana High Court dismissed a writ petition by an advocate accused of fabricating Government Orders, holding the Advocates Protection Act covers violence against lawyers, not their own alleged crimes.
Justice T. Madhavi Devi, sitting singly at the Telangana High Court, dismissed a writ petition filed by Karanam Rajesh Kumar, who is arrayed as accused No. 11 in Crime No. 62 of 2026 registered by the Economic Offences Wing, Cyberabad. The petitioner, described as a practicing advocate, challenged his arrest as violative of the Telangana Advocates Protection Act, 2026 and Sections 35 to 62 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). The court found that the Advocates Protection Act was enacted to protect lawyers from violence and criminal intimidation in the discharge of their professional duties, and that it cannot be invoked to shield an advocate from action for alleged illegal activities he is said to have carried out himself.
The Dispute Before the High Court
Karanam Rajesh Kumar filed Writ Petition No. 20568 of 2026 seeking a declaration that the action of respondents No. 2 to 5 in proceeding against him in FIR No. 62 of 2026 was illegal and arbitrary. His case was that the arrest was made without adhering to the mandatory safeguards under Section 14 of the Telangana Advocates Protection Act, 2026 and without following the procedure prescribed under Sections 35 to 62 of BNSS.
He contended that the offences registered against him required only the issuance of a notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS, and that he was willing to cooperate with the investigation. He also argued that the primary allegations of forgery and fabrication of fake Government Orders were directed at accused Nos. 1 to 3, not at him, and that coercive steps were therefore unwarranted.
The State's Position
The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home opposed the petition squarely. The State submitted that investigation had disclosed the petitioner's role as the kingpin and principal conspirator in the scheme. According to the State, the petitioner projected himself as an Additional Collector and prepared and fabricated G.O.Ms. Nos. 552 to 555 and 558, along with forged proceedings, fake official letters, and fabricated No-Objection Certificates. It was submitted that accused Nos. 8 and 9 thereafter forged the signatures of senior Government officials on the basis of these fabricated documents.
The State further submitted that the petitioner was not, in fact, a practicing advocate and therefore could not claim protection under the Telangana Advocates Protection Act, 2026 at all. The Government Pleader also placed on record that the petitioner had earlier approached the High Court in Crl.P. No. 8418 of 2026 seeking anticipatory bail, which was dismissed on 22 June 2026. A separate petition, Crl.P. No. 9052 of 2026, seeking quashing of the proceedings, was stated to be pending. Given that the alleged offences were punishable with imprisonment exceeding seven years, the State contended that custodial interrogation was necessary for the investigation.
How the Court Reasoned on the Advocates Protection Act
Justice T. Madhavi Devi examined the scope and purpose of the Telangana Advocates Protection Act, 2026. The court held that the legislation was enacted for the benefit of advocates “to protect them from the acts of violence, criminal force, criminal intimidation, damage of property and other offences committed against them in the discharge of their professional duties.”
The court drew a clear line: the Act is designed to protect advocates as victims, not to immunise them from criminal action for offences they are alleged to have committed. On that basis, the court held that “the protection contemplated under the said Act is not applicable to this case.”
The court also addressed the BNSS contention. It noted that Sections 35 to 62 of BNSS prescribe the procedure governing arrest and investigation, and accepted the Government Pleader's submission that the investigation was being conducted in accordance with those provisions. No procedural irregularity was found to have been established.
The prior dismissal of the anticipatory bail application by this same court on 22 June 2026 formed part of the overall picture. The court observed that the petitioner had already sought and been denied anticipatory bail, and that nothing in the writ petition furnished a distinct basis for relief on the grounds urged.
Significance of the Ruling on the 2026 Act
The Telangana Advocates Protection Act, 2026 is a relatively recent enactment. The judgment is one of the first occasions on which the High Court has interpreted the Act's protective ambit. By confining the Act's operation to situations where advocates are targeted as victims in the course of their professional duties, the court has clarified that the statute does not create a category of procedural immunity for advocates facing ordinary criminal prosecution.
This reading means that an advocate who is investigated for an offence allegedly committed in a personal or non-professional capacity cannot invoke Section 14 of the Act to resist arrest or investigation. The protection travels with the professional role of the advocate, not the professional identity of the person.
Outcome
The writ petition was dismissed on 2 July 2026. There was no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in the matter were directed to stand closed.