Karnataka High Court Opens Contempt Case After Lawyers Disrupt Chief Justice Court Hall

The High Court of Karnataka on Tuesday began contempt of court proceedings against unidentified advocates who entered the court hall of the Chief Justice in Bengaluru and disrupted hearings, turning a day of statewide protest into a test of conduct for the legal profession. A division bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice K.S. Hemalekha took serious exception to the incident and ordered that a contempt case be registered.

The disruption came as bar associations across Karnataka had called on lawyers to stay away from court proceedings for the day. According to the court's order, a group of advocates entered the Chief Justice's court hall, created a ruckus and pressed lawyers present to leave, objecting to their participation despite the boycott call. The bench said such conduct was unacceptable and unbecoming of members of the legal profession.

Notice to Bengaluru Advocates Association

The bench issued notice to the Advocates Association of Bengaluru and directed the court registry to examine CCTV footage to identify the people who caused the disturbance. The matter was listed for further hearing on November 19. The court also directed the association to file an affidavit by the next date.

After the order was passed, association treasurer Shwetha Ravishankar appeared before the bench and sought to explain the events, saying several people were present and that a person near the dais had been pushed. The bench did not accept the explanation and observed that the person had approached the dais. The court noted that it had earlier assured the association that no adverse orders would be passed against lawyers who abstained that day.

The protest was called by the Karnataka State Bar Council, the Bengaluru association and other groups after the murders of advocates Manjunath in Whitefield and Sriram in Annapurneshwari Nagar, and an attempt to murder advocate Venkatramana Sannakki of Gouribidanur in Kolar district. The associations demanded stronger protection under the Prohibition of Violence Against Advocates Act, 2023.

A Parallel Push on Lawyer Safety

On the same day, a separate division bench of Justices D.K. Singh and H. Shanthi Bhushan opened a suo motu public interest litigation on violence against advocates, acting on representations from the Bengaluru association and the state bar council. The bench's action followed the killings of Sriram V. on October 9 and Manjunath on October 18, and the attack on Sannakki on October 28.

Bar council chairman R. Rajanna said the council, as a statutory body, could not call for a shutdown or ask advocates to boycott proceedings, but it supported the cause. He said the council wants amendments to the 2023 law so that offenses against advocates become non-bailable, and he called for safeguards against bail before chargesheets are filed. Association president Vivek Subbareddy said the group had sought protection for advocates, a court-monitored investigation and a standard procedure for how lawyers are treated at police stations.

Council office-bearers and association leaders met Home Minister Priyank Kharge and submitted a representation seeking stricter measures for lawyer safety. The associations also asked two judges to register a public interest case addressing their concerns, a request the high court has now taken up on its own.

What It Means for Legal Careers

For working lawyers, court staff and law students preparing to enter practice, the episode puts courtroom conduct and institutional discipline at the center of the legal profession. The court's reliance on video footage to identify individuals shows how disciplinary proceedings can now rest on documented evidence, raising the stakes for anyone joining protests inside court premises.

The coming weeks will show how the court handles both tracks. A contempt case and a public interest case now run alongside each other, one examining the conduct of lawyers and the other examining the safety of lawyers. The November 19 hearing on the contempt matter and the state government's response to the safety demands will shape how firms, chambers and bar bodies instruct their members.