Karnataka High Court Opens Lawyer Safety Case as Bench Faults Stations Over Civil Disputes

The Karnataka High Court in Bengaluru on Tuesday initiated a public interest case on its own motion to examine rising violence, assaults, threats and murders of advocates across the state, and what protection members of the legal profession need. A division bench of Justices D K Singh and H Shanti Bhushan directed the court registry to register the case after representations from the Advocates Association, Bengaluru and the Karnataka State Bar Council.

The case follows a statewide boycott of court proceedings called by the advocates association after recent attacks on lawyers, including the murders of advocates Sriram V and Manjunath and an alleged attempt to murder senior advocate Venkataramanappa Sannakki. The court said an attack on an advocate, particularly one that results in loss of life, cannot be treated as an isolated incident because it also affects the independence of the bar and the administration of justice.

State asked to report on protections

The bench directed the state government to place before it the standard operating procedures and instructions that currently govern the matters raised, and to respond on the legislative and administrative measures it proposes to strengthen existing law on the protection and welfare of advocates, including the Advocates Protection Act. The court observed that concerns expressed by the bar cannot be addressed through assurances alone and that appropriate measures need an effective mechanism for implementation.

The bench framed the issue as one of professional independence rather than special status. It said an advocate must be able to represent a client without fear of physical harm, threat or intimidation, and that protecting lawyers is necessary so those who assist the courts can carry out their duties without insecurity. That framing places the safety of legal professionals in the same category as the functioning of the courts themselves, a point the bench returned to more than once in its order.

Police stations and civil disputes

The court also addressed allegations from the advocates association that police stations in several instances had acted as parallel courts, taking up civil disputes between private parties and trying to settle them at the station. The bench said a police station cannot be converted into a forum for adjudicating civil rights or for settling disputes over property, possession, contractual obligations or other civil claims. It directed the state government and police department to instruct all stations not to entertain or settle civil disputes except where a criminal offense requiring action is disclosed.

The same week, a separate division bench headed by Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru registered contempt proceedings over disruption of proceedings after a group of advocates entered the Chief Justice's court hall and asked lawyers there to leave during the boycott. The bench issued notice to the advocates association and set its response to be heard at the contempt hearing on November 19.

The two proceedings show the pressure building on legal professionals and on the institutions that regulate them. The safety case run by Justices Singh and Shanti Bhushan gives advocates a formal channel to press for stronger statutory protection, while the contempt matter tests how far a boycott can go before courts treat it as interference. Lawyers following the matter will watch what the state submits on existing procedures and whether it proposes amendments to the protection law, with the next hearing dates and the November 19 contempt session as the immediate markers.