Karnataka High Court initiates suo motu case on violence against lawyers; seeks report from State

The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday initiated a suo motu case to examine the increasing incidents of violence, assaults, threats and murders of advocates across the State and the need to ensure adequate protection to members of the legal fraternity.

A Division Bench of Justice DK Singh and Justice H Shanti Bhushan directed the High Court registry to register a case as public interest litigation (PIL) following representations by the Advocates Association, Bengaluru (AAB), and the Karnataka State Bar Council (KSBC), highlighting the recent murders of advocates Sriram V and Manjunath, and the alleged attempt to murder Senior Advocate Venkataramanappa Sannakki.

“An attack upon an advocate, particularly one resulting in the loss of life, cannot be viewed as an isolated incident, since it also affects the independence of the Bar and the administration of justice,” the Court said.

The Bench emphasised that advocates are officers of the Court and partners in the administration of justice, and their safety, dignity and professional independence are matters of considerable importance.

The Court observed that advocates must be able to represent their clients fearlessly without apprehension of physical harm, threats or intimidation.

The High Court directed the State government to examine the necessity of strengthening the existing statutory framework relating to the protection and welfare of advocates, including the Advocates Protection Act.

The State has been asked to place before the Court its response on the legislative and administrative measures proposed to strengthen the existing law.

The Bench noted that the increasing incidents of threats, assaults, intimidation and violence against advocates call for an examination of whether the existing statutory provisions provide adequate protection.

“The concerns expressed by the Bar cannot be addressed merely by issuing assurances. Appropriate legislative and administrative measures, supported by an effective mechanism for implementation, are required,” the Court said.

The High Court also took note of allegations that police stations in several instances were functioning as parallel courts by entertaining civil disputes between private parties and attempting to settle them.

The Court observed that police stations cannot be converted into forums for adjudicating civil rights or settling disputes relating to property, possession, contractual obligations or other civil claims.

It directed the State government and the Police Department to ensure that all police stations are specifically instructed not to entertain or settle civil disputes, except where a criminal offence requiring action in accordance with law is disclosed.

The Court further stressed the need for proper supervision and accountability of police officers who violate the existing instructions and Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs).

The Bench said a uniform SOP must be put in place prescribing the manner in which advocates approaching police stations in the discharge of their professional duties are to be received and treated.

“At the least, due respect, dignity and minimum professional courtesy must be extended to an advocate who approaches a police station in the discharge of his professional obligations,” the Court observed.

The Court clarified that this was not to confer any special privilege upon advocates, but to ensure that public servants maintain proper conduct and extend professional courtesy.

It also directed the formulation of a separate SOP for receiving and examining complaints made by advocates against police officers, ensuring that such complaints are acknowledged, examined within a reasonable time and dealt with in accordance with law.

The High Court directed the police authorities to furnish case-wise details of investigations into every murder of an advocate reported in Karnataka.

The consolidated statement, to be verified by the Director General and Inspector General of Police, Karnataka, must include the name of the deceased advocate, date and place of occurrence, police station, crime number, sections of law invoked, FIR registration date, names of accused, arrests made, material collected during investigation and the present stage of investigation.

The authorities must also indicate whether charge sheets have been filed and, in cases where investigations are pending, the reasons for delay, steps taken so far and the further course of investigation proposed.

The Court requested the Advocate General to place on record a status report concerning the investigation into the recent incidents, including FIRs registered, arrests made, material collected and further steps proposed.

The Court also issued notice to the respondents, including the State Government, police authorities, Bar Council of India, KSBC and AAB.

The matter will be heard next on December 8.

[Read Order]