Supreme Court’s Decision on Lawyer-Police Clash
In a significant legal development, the Supreme Court of India has rejected the plea of five advocates who claimed they faced undue police harassment after representing a client against a prominent Pune real estate developer. The court, on Friday, conveyed that the Bombay High Court should prioritize the hearing of the advocates’ ongoing petition but refused to transfer the investigation from the Pune police to another agency, as the lawyers had requested.
Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, presided over the bench and emphasized the importance of the High Court addressing the matter expeditiously. “We request the High Court to accord hearing on a priority basis,” stated the Bench.
Allegations and Legal Arguments
Senior Advocate Devadatt Kamat, representing the embattled lawyers, narrated to the Court that these advocates were being targeted due to their legal actions against the developer. He alleged that the Pune Police Commissioner had a vested interest, aligning with the developer.
Kamat recounted a harrowing incident involving one of the lawyers, who was allegedly arrested at 1:50 a.m. by a group of nearly 200 individuals before any formal First Information Report (FIR) was registered. This lawyer endured 40 days of custody until relief was granted by the Bombay High Court. “I was arrested after nearly 200 people barged into my house at 1.50 a.m. There was no FIR at that point,” Kamat quoted the advocate as saying.
Further complicating the legal saga, Kamat highlighted that a second FIR was filed on June 29, 2026, accusing the same lawyer of an assault allegedly occurring in 2025. This FIR implicated additional petitioners, including his sister and three junior advocates, all involved in the same legal case against the developer.
More Read
Call for Investigation Transfer
The senior advocate pleaded with the Supreme Court to transfer the investigation to another body, citing a lack of confidence in the Pune Police’s objectivity. “I have filed three suits on behalf of a client against the developer. My only prayer is that the investigation be transferred to any other agency because I have no faith in the present investigation,” Kamat submitted.
However, the Supreme Court maintained its stance, emphasizing the role of the High Court in adjudicating the matter first. “We cannot cast aspersions on the High Court like this. You already have an order which is not adverse. We are not saying anything on the merits. Approach the High Court. If there is an adverse order, come here,” Chief Justice Kant directed, dismissing the plea.
This decision underscores the judiciary’s approach to maintaining procedural norms, reaffirming the High Court’s primary jurisdiction in such disputes.
