Supreme Court’s Notice on Safety Guidelines for Women Advocates Raises Questions of Constitutional Duty, Judicial Jurisdiction and Executive Accountability

The Supreme Court of India, acting upon a petition formally presented as a plea requesting the formulation of protective procedures, has issued a notice addressed jointly to the Union Government and to the governments of the various States, thereby initiating a procedural step that obliges the executive authorities to submit their views on the request for safety guidelines concerning women members of the legal profession when they enter police stations in the course of performing their professional duties. This development signifies the Court’s recognition that the existing statutory and administrative arrangements may require clarification or augmentation to ensure that female advocates are shielded from potential threats, intimidation or harassment that could arise within police premises, reflecting concerns rooted in the constitutional guarantee of equality before the law and the right to live with dignity, which are particularly salient for women seeking access to law‑enforcement institutions. By directing the notice to both the Union and the States, the Court underscores the shared responsibility of central and state authorities in the regulation of police conduct, the implementation of safety protocols, and the enforcement of any guidelines that may be issued, thereby raising questions about the scope of legislative competence and the extent of administrative duty imposed upon the various levels of government under the Constitution. The issuance of the notice thus places the matter within the ambit of judicial supervision, inviting the executive to delineate any existing policies, draft regulations, or proposed measures, and setting the stage for potential judicial determination of whether the proposed safety guidelines must be framed as binding directives, advisory standards, or policy recommendations to fulfil the constitutional mandate of protecting women advocates while they perform their essential role in the administration of justice.

One question that arises is whether the petition seeking safety guidelines for women advocates visiting police stations falls within the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution, thereby allowing the Court to entertain a direct application for enforcement of fundamental rights. The answer may depend on whether the petitioner can establish that the absence of such guidelines constitutes a violation of the constitutional guarantees of equality before the law and the right to life and personal liberty, which are enforceable by the Supreme Court irrespective of any pending legislative or executive measures.

Another important legal issue is whether the Union and State governments possess a statutory duty under existing police regulation statutes, such as the Police Acts of the respective states, to formulate and implement safety protocols specifically aimed at protecting women lawyers, and whether the failure to do so would amount to a breach of statutory obligations that could be subject to judicial review. Perhaps the more significant constitutional concern is whether the denial of adequate safety measures infringes upon the right to dignity and equality guaranteed under Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution, thereby obligating the Court to direct the executive to adopt mandatory guidelines that are enforceable through writ jurisdiction.

A further administrative‑law perspective concerns the principle of natural justice, as the notice requires the Union and State governments to provide their reasons for either proposing or refraining from issuing safety guidelines, and the Court may examine whether any refusal to act is arbitrary, unreasonable or violates the doctrine of proportionality, which are recognised standards for evaluating executive inaction. Perhaps the procedural significance lies in the fact that the notice creates a legitimate expectation on the part of women advocates that the government will address their safety concerns, and any deviation from this expectation without adequate justification could be challenged as a denial of fair administrative procedure.

If the Union and State responses fail to satisfy the Court’s expectations, a possible subsequent legal step could involve the Supreme Court issuing a direction or mandamus compelling the executive to frame binding safety guidelines, thereby converting the advisory request into an enforceable directive that carries the force of law. A fuller legal assessment would require clarity on whether such guidelines would be framed as statutory rules under the appropriate enabling legislation, or as policy directives subject to legislative approval, and the extent to which the Court can prescribe detailed procedural safeguards for women advocates without overstepping its jurisdiction, which would ultimately shape the balance between judicial activism and respect for the separation of powers.