Karnataka High Court initiates contempt of court case over courtroom ruckus by lawyers; issues notice to AAB

The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday initiated a suo motu contempt of court case against unidentified persons who allegedly created a ruckus in the Chief Justice's court hall amid a protest called by the Advocates Association of Bengaluru (AAB) against incidents of violence against advocates in the State.

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice KS Hemalekha took strong exception to the conduct of the advocates, observing that such behaviour was unacceptable and unbecoming of members of the legal profession.

In its order, the Bench stated,

"Prima facie, we are of the view that this conduct amounts to contemptuous behaviour."

The Court directed its registry to examine the CCTV footage and identify the persons who attempted to create a ruckus in the court hall.

"The registry shall identify the persons who attempted to create the ruckus in the court hall by examining the CCTV footage," the order said.

The Court further directed that notice be issued to AAB to appear in the proceedings.

The matter has been listed for further hearing on November 19.

The Karnataka State Bar Council, AAB and other associations across the State had called for a protest on Tuesday, demanding the strengthening and effective implementation of the Prohibition of Violence Against Advocates Act, 2023, in the wake of recent attacks on advocates in various parts of Karnataka.

Amid this development, several advocates allegedly entered the Chief Justice's court hall today and disrupted the proceedings.

After the Court passed its order initiating contempt proceedings against such lawyers, AAB's treasurer Shwetha Ravishankar appeared before the Bench and sought to explain the incident.

The Bench remarked that it does not expect advocates to enter the court hall and create a disturbance.

Ravishankar submitted that several people were present at the time and that a person alleged to have come to the court's dais had allegedly been pushed.

The Bench, however, rejected the explanation, stating that the person had approached the dais.

"No, no. He came up right here. He came up to the dais. We have already issued a contempt notice. We are done. We are identifying the people who were here. This is not an acceptable behaviour that we will accept," the Court said.

The Bench also referred to the Supreme Court's orders concerning strikes by advocates and contempt proceedings against office-bearers of various associations.

"We have no option. We are constrained to initiate these proceedings," it observed.

When Ravishankar sought to tender an apology on behalf of the advocates, the bench insisted that a formal affidavit of apology would have to be filed.

"What apology? You (lawyers who disrupted court proceedings) will give an affidavit of apology if you want to do it. What kind of behaviour is this? You are an advocate? You are an officer of the Court. You can't simply throw your responsibilities away and behave like this. It's absolutely unbecoming of an advocate," the bench said.

The bench further warned that apart from initiating contempt proceedings, it would also consider referring the matter to the Bar Council.

"Not only will we issue contempt, we will refer it to the Bar Council," the Court said.

In a stern observation directed at an advocate allegedly involved in the incident, the Bench remarked,

"There is no reason for you to be an advocate at all if you can't conduct yourself like an advocate."

Ravishankar subsequently sought exemption for the day and submitted that all office-bearers of AAB would appear before the Court the following day and file an affidavit on behalf of the association.

The Bench, however, reiterated that contempt notice had already been issued and that the association has to respond to the proceedings.

"We have given the notice in a contempt proceeding. You have to come and answer to this. This is contempt in the face of the court. File your reply, we will see what needs to be done," the Court said.

The Bench also expressed displeasure over the incident, particularly in view of its earlier assurance that no adverse orders would be passed if lawyers did not appear today amid the AAB protest.

"Personally speaking, this is not the kind of behaviour, especially after we have said that no adverse orders will be passed. We have told the Association, we understand your concern... This is still the High Court of the State, and if you think that anyone can barge in and start creating a ruckus, then the consequences must follow," the Bench said.

The Court directed AAB to file an affidavit and said it would decide on the further course of action after hearing the parties.