This past month, I witnessed the Karnataka Bar Council Election campaign for the first time as a young advocate. It was interesting to see how individual campaigning gradually heated up as the day of voting neared. Candidates found ways to reach out to the massive advocate community in Bangalore through different means with some of us even receiving posts at home with election pamphlets inside them. Random phone calls from unknown numbers were frequent and the number of individual pamphlets collected by each advocate could make up the pages for a small novel.

The effort put in by the approximate 140+ candidates is commendable.

There was, however, one glaring issue which I observed over the approximate 30 days of campaigning. This issue points to the larger scheme of such elections and the ignorance exhibited by advocates on a daily basis during the campaign days and even otherwise. The issue in this case is the large number of pamphlets and posters which were blatantly discarded along the corridors of several court complexes during the campaign days. This was done by advocates themselves who, after being handed these pamphlets at the entrance of the court complex by prospective candidates, would immediately discard them on the floor without a care in the world.

This large scale litter around various trial courts and the High Court unfortunately overshadowed the efforts of the candidates and organising committee in making this election a success. It also amounted to a complete disrespect for the judiciary as a physical entity. It is very unfortunate that such homegrown habits are carried into our court halls fleetingly.

I managed to collate pictures from different court complexes with the help of my colleagues. The pictures as always, need no description. 

The amount of effort the candidates put in to contest this election was inversely proportional to the respect shown to the candidates by the voter base of advocates. This can be corroborated by the number of pamphlets seen on the road and the floors of the courts.

Having taken the step to contest and put in the effort to make a name for oneself, the expectation of the candidates from advocates would be nothing short of basic decency and acknowledgment of effort regardless of the intention to vote. Taking a pamphlet and throwing it on the floor points to a lack of values attached to the legal profession. The BCI Rules have a separate section for ‘Rules on an Advocate’s Duty Towards the Court’. Key points include ‘Act in a dignified manner’ and ‘Respect the Court’. There is absolutely no requirement of rules to regulate the conduct of an advocate as this should be inherent and not imposed. Necessity, however, points towards rules to govern the conduct of advocates in the court premises.

The solutions to this problem, unfortunately, are not in the hands of the organising committee or the candidates who contest Bar Council elections. It lies with the masses of advocates who require a sense of duty towards the profession they commit to for life. Potential solutions include increasing the presence of dustbins along corridors of all court halls, regardless of elections being around the corner. The use of electronic means to campaign must be encouraged in an era where technology has a wider reach than pieces of paper. Given the expenses associated with funding an election campaign, large advocate congregations should be organised where contesting candidates must deliver speeches or where space is created for candidates to meet their voter base. This leads to more accountability of the candidate as opposed to requesting voters for ‘The First Preferential Vote’ on each pamphlet that is distributed. The Bar Council Election campaign needs to evolve from a vote requesting activity to a platform where accountability and votes go hand-in-hand. 

The problem, however, is that the advocacy being undertaken in our courts is being done majorly for personal gain and not with the intention to proceed with collective change in society. The biggest hypocrisy, therefore, is not what the candidates claim to undertake once elected, but the voters themselves who refuse to be part of that change despite wanting it desperately.

CC Chengappa is an advocate practicing before the High Court of Karnataka.