Karnataka High Court rebukes lawyer for dictating, browbeating judge

The Karnataka High Court recently made adverse remarks against a lawyer for "dictating and browbeating" it with a view to getting a favourable order [Ganesh & Ors v. Govind Reddy & Ors].

While dismissing a review petition argued by Advocate BM Arun, Justice Hanchate Sanjeevkumar said that the lawyer virtually "dictated the Court to write the order according to his convenience and his whims and fancies."

"Sri.B.M.Arun, learned counsel argued the matter on review petition in the tone of virtually threatening the Court and with an intention to compel to pass the order according to his whims and fancies what he wants. Just because in MFA No.7416/2025 according to his understanding he failed to get the order according to his wishes and by making certain remarks on the Court he has argued with all vehemence showing his anguish personally to the Court."

The Court stopped short of calling for disciplinary action against Arun by the Bar Council. It said that he was too personally invested in the case.

"The lawyer cannot wear shoes of his client. The Court cannot satisfy both parties; one party obviously being dissatisfied and the Advocate - Sri.B.M.Arun could not have stepped into the shoes of the client to express his dissatisfaction as if it is a personal case and ought not to have addressed the Court in the conduct disrespecting the Court and harming dignity and decorum of the Court."

The judge went on to enlist the duties of an advocate arguing before a court, observing,

"Since the main job of lawyer is to assist the Court in dispensation of justice, therefore, the Advocate cannot behave with the Court in a disrespectful manner. But, in the present case, the way in which Sri.B.M.Arun, Advocate has argued is nothing but shouting to the Court derogative to the dignity and decorum of the Court..."

Questioning the intentions of the review petitioners, the Court noted,

"Apart from vexatious, false and frivolous as present case is one of the example how the mighty people are controlling and dominating the vulnerable sections, vulnerable parties to deprive the legitimate rights of getting share in the properties."

It thus dismissed the review petition with costs of ₹25,000.

[Read order]