Overview The Supreme Court on 9 March 2026 partially altered the guidelines issued by the Kerala High Court regarding police arrests inside court premises. The judgment clarifies when police may detain a person without prior permission from the presiding judicial officer, balancing the need for security with the sanctity of judicial spaces. Key Developments The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s definition of court premises as encompassing all structures used for court work, not just the courtroom. Paragraph 8.3 of the High Court order, which limited arrests to “emergent situations” and “long‑pending warrant matters”, was deemed “too restrictive”. The apex court introduced three broader grounds for arrest within court premises: (a) Occurrence of a cognizable offence on the premises. (b) Immediate apprehension of a suspect who has just committed an offence. (c) Prevention of a suspect/accused from hiding inside the premises. The composition of the District‑level Committee was tweaked to include an additional police officer nominated by the Inspector General of Police or the Commissioner of Police. The Court reiterated that neither the State nor District Committees can dilute police powers essential for maintaining law and order. Important Facts The dispute originated from a suo moto petition filed after a reported police assault on a lawyer at the Ramankary Magistrate Court, Alappuzha. The petition was prompted by a letter from the Kerala Police Officers Association. Senior Advocate R Basant argued that the High Court’s definition of court premises was unduly narrow and that the conflict‑resolution Committee excluded police representation. A two‑judge bench comprising the Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi modified paragraph 8.2(iii) to incorpora