Karnataka High Court sets aside Bar Council decision to suspend enrolment of lawyer accused of sexual harassment

The Karnataka High Court recently set aside the State Bar Council's decision to suspend a lawyer from practising in any court of the country after a woman lawyer filed a sexual harassment complaint against him [H Manjunath v. Karnataka State Bar Council & Anr]..Justice M Nagaprasanna ordered the Karnataka State Bar Council to first hear the accused lawyer and consider his objections, which are to be filed on or before January 10, and then take a fresh decision. “The [Prevention of Sexual Harassment] Committee would hear the petitioner on 13.01.2024. Objections shall be placed before the Council qua the notice issued to the petitioner on the complaint made by the complainant and appropriate orders would be passed in accordance with law after considering the objections of the petitioner,” the Court added..Following a complaint filed by a woman advocate on September 2, 2023, the petitioner, H Manjunath had been issued notice on September 21. After he requested 10-14 days to submit his explanation, the Council waited for 30 days before passing the suspension order in November 2023. Manjunath approached the High Court against this decision, which had the effect of barring him from practising in any court of the country.It was submitted before the Court that the petitioner came to know about the suspension order only through social media. He argued he could not have been suspended by the Bar Council without providing him a reasonable opportunity for presenting his defence.He also contended that the complaint was not maintainable as it ought to have been placed before the Prevention of Sexual Harassment (POSH) Committee since it involved an allegation of sexual harassment against an advocate..After hearing the submissions, the Court came to the conclusion that the petitioner was not afforded a reasonable opportunity to submit his defence against the complaint.It opined that such an action would have serious civil and professional consequences on the petitioner. “Therefore, the petitioner ought to have been afforded an opportunity to submit his defence in the light of the allegations being of nature that would result in serious consequences,” the Court said.Thus, the Court found it appropriate to grant the petitioner more time to file his objections. “The order impugned dated 05.11.2023 is set-aside,” it ordered. .The petitioner, H Manjunath appeared in personAdvocate Nataraj G represented the State Bar Council. Advocate Mahesh Arkalgud represented the complainant. Advocate Anu Chengappa represented the POSH Committee..[Read Judgment]