Jodhpur Police–Lawyer Dispute: In-depth Legal Analysis of Section 151 CrPC Misuse
The recent Jodhpur police–lawyer incident has ignited a crucial debate on law enforcement powers, advocates’ rights, and the security of ordinary citizens. This is not just a case — it is a clear warning for the very foundation of democracy in India.
Background: What Happened at the Police Station?
On the night of December 1–2, at Kudi Bhagtasni Police Station, Jodhpur, Advocate Bharat Singh Rathore arrived with his female associate. Their purpose was legitimate: to assist a rape survivor in recording her statement — a constitutional duty and a basic right to legal aid.
Everything seemed routine until the lawyer observed that the investigation officer was not in uniform but in casual clothes. What might appear trivial to some is significant under law: a uniform is not mere attire, it represents the legitimate authority of the State.
The Question Raised — And the Aggressive Response
When the lawyer politely asked, “Why are you not in uniform?”, the atmosphere turned tense. The SHO reportedly responded aggressively, threatening: “I will put you inside under Section 151 immediately.” The warning came with abusive language and an attempt to misuse preventive detention powers to intimidate — even before any offence was committed.
This reaction is deeply concerning because it transforms a preventive power into a coercive tool. A lawful question, raised in the interest of transparency, should never merit threats or intimidation.
Understanding Section 151 CrPC: Preventive Power Not Punitive Weapon
Section 151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure gives police the power to detain a person if they believe that the person is likely to commit a serious offence or disturb public peace. The objective: prevention, not punishment. It is meant to protect society — not to silence legitimate questions or lawful dissent.
Using Section 151 to threaten a lawyer who was only performing his duty violates the very spirit of the law. Preventive detention must be based on concrete evidence or reasonable suspicion — not used as a tool of fear or suppression.
Mobile Recording: Legal Right & Court Precedent
The female associate of the lawyer courageously recorded the entire exchange on her phone. Without that video, the incident might have remained hidden. This step ensured accountability and brought the truth to light.
Legally too, there is no bar on recording inside a police station. In its 2020 judgment, the Supreme Court mandated installation of CCTV cameras with audio-video recording in all police stations, including interrogation rooms, lockups, corridors — covering every area. Objecting to a mobile recording, or threatening someone for doing so, is a direct violation of the principle of transparency upheld by the Court.
Legal Community Reacts: Suspension, Inquiry & Demand for Accountability
The moment the incident came to light, the legal fraternity responded strongly. The Bar Council of India took notice, letters were sent to the Chief Minister, the DGP, and the Police Commissioner of Rajasthan.
Consequently, the SHO has been suspended and a departmental inquiry ordered. This demonstrates that when advocates stand firm with knowledge and conviction, the system can — and does — respond. Accountability is possible.
Two Paths of Legal Practice: Run-around vs Knowledge-Based Advocacy
This case draws a clear distinction between two kinds of legal practice. The first — the run-around style — where junior lawyers only carry files, attend court, and manage procedures. The second — knowledge-based advocacy — where a lawyer understands law deeply, knows citizens’ rights, and fearlessly challenges even the most powerful authorities when needed.
Advocate Rathore’s actions exemplify knowledge-based advocacy. He raised a valid legal issue for his client, protected the dignity of the profession, and upheld constitutional values even inside a police station.
What If Even Lawyers Are Unsafe? The Bigger Threat to Citizens
If a well-informed and confident lawyer can be threatened inside a police station, what hope does an ordinary citizen have? Many victims of injustice may not even dare to raise such questions. Lack of awareness, fear of retaliation, or power imbalance may silence them forever.
This incident is a wake-up call for every citizen: awareness about rights is not optional — it is essential.
Checks and Balances: The Soul of Democracy
At its core, this is not just about one police station or one lawyer. It is about the rule of law, accountability, and the balance of power. Police have powers — but those powers are not absolute. They are defined, limited, and subject to constitutional safeguards, judiciary oversight, and public scrutiny.
Today, mobile-phone cameras and public vigilance have become powerful tools for justice. They help protect rights, deter misuse of power, and strengthen transparency. When authority meets accountability, democracy thrives.
Which Side Should Justice Lean Toward: Power or Rights?
When law enforcement and legal professionals come face to face, justice must always side with the citizen’s constitutional rights — not the convenience of the system or the comfort of authority. In a democracy, power should never override rights.
Conclusion — No One Is Above the Law
This incident sends a strong message: neither the uniform nor the chair is above the law. True justice exists where balance is maintained, rights are protected, and dignity of law is respected.
If You Need Help — We Are Here
If your rights have been violated, if there has been misuse of police power, or if you require legal assistance — whether related to Court Marriage or any other legal matter — we extend our support across India. Stand up for your rights. Seek justice. You are not alone.
Contact & Support
https://delhilawfirm.news
Helpline: 9990649999, 9999889091