Karnataka High Court
The Legal Attorneys And Barristers vs The Chief Secretary on 4 June, 2019
Bench: Chief Justice, P.S.Dinesh Kumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JUNE, 2019
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO. 40619 / 2018 (GM-RES-PIL)
BETWEEN
THE LEGAL
ATTORNEYS & BARRISTERS
NO.7, 2ND FLOOR
THALANKI VILLA
WALTON ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS
ALL PANEL ASSOCIATE ADVOCATES
1. SRIKANTH P SHIMPI
RETD. JUDGE AND ADVOCATE
KAR 732/1986
2. SRI. R V SREERAMA REDDY
ADVOCATE, KAR NO.46/1979
3. SMT. DIPTI AJITH PATIL
ADVOCATE, MAH NO.4526/2004
4.SRI. DHANANJAYA
ADVOCATE, KAR NO.2012/2007
2
5. SMT. NIRIKSHANA
ADVOCATE, KAR NO.1012/1998
6. MS. RESHMA KHANUM
ADVOCATE, KAR NO.1472/2017
7. SRI. PAUL DINAKARAN
ADVOCATE, KAR NO.1903/2017
8. SMT. RABIYA KAHNUM
ADVOCATE, KAR NO.1741/2017
9. SRI. ABHILASH
ADVOCATE, KAR NO.879/2016
10. MS. UZMA SHABNAM
ADVOCATE, KAR NO.573/2018
11. SRI. JAYASHANKAR H.S.
ADVOCATE KAR 476/2018
...PETITIONERS
(BY SMT. EDA NIREEKSHANA, ADVOCATE FOR
SMT. SUDHA.B, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE CHIEF SECRETARY
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
VIDHANA SOUDHA
DR. AMBEDKAR BEEDHI
BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
LAW DEPARTMENT
LAW, JUSTICE AND PARLIAMENT AFFAIRS
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
VIDHANA SOUDHA
DR. AMBEDKAR BEEDHI
BANGALORE - 560 001.
3
3. THE SECRETARY
BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA,
NO.21, ROUSE AVENUE INSTITUTIONAL AREA
NEAR BAL BHAVAN
NEW DELHI - 110 002.
4. THE SECRETARY
KARNATAKA STATE BAR COUNCIL
OLD KGID BUILDING
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE - 560 001.
5. THE REGISTRAR GENERAL
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU - 560 001.
6. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL
AND INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 001.
7. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
INFANTRY ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 001.
8. THE KARNATAKA STATE LAW COMMISSION
ROOM NO. 302, 308 AND 308A
3RD FLOOR
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU - 560 001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. D. NAGARAJ, AGA FOR R1, R2, R6 TO R8)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
DIRECTION TO THE RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 TO PASS AN
ORDINANCE-BILL WITH REGARD TO ADVOCATES
4
PROTECTION BILL, ENSURING SAFETY AND SECURITY TO
THE ADVOCATES; PROTECTION OF ADVOCATES FROM
ARREST, DETENTION AND REMAND OF POLICE CUSTODY
FOR THE OFFENCE PURPORTED TO HAVE BEEN
COMMITTED DURING THE COURSE OF DISCHARGING
PROFESSIONAL DUTY; REGARDING TO PROVIDE
STATUTORY PROTECTION TO THE ADVOCATES FROM
SUCH UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.
2. The petitioner is a firm of advocates. The petition is in the nature of a public interest litigation. The prayers made in the petition read thus:
(a) pass an order of Writ of Mandamus or direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to pass an Ordinance-
Bill with regard to Advocates Protection Bill, ensuring safety and security to the Advocates; Protection of Advocates from Arrest, Detention and remand of Police custody for the offence purported to have been committed during the course of discharging professional duty; regarding to provide statutory protection to the Advocates from such unlawful activities, 5
(b) issue a Writ or direction to the respondents that Sanction from respondents No.3 and 4 to be made mandatory prior to prosecution of any Advocate before the Hon'ble Court/s or Quasi Judicial Authorities or before Police Authorities, as right of Practice is guaranteed to the Advocates under Advocates Act, 1961,
(c) pass an order of Writ of Mandamus or direction to respondent No.5 to provide adequate securities to the Judicial Officers of Trial court/s and Sessions Court/s in the State of Karnataka Round the Clock, so as to delivery free and fair justice to both complainant-accused, appellant-respondent, plaintiff-defendant, petitioner-respondent and further to protect them from the imminent threat at the hands of corrupt politicians, corrupt bureaucrats, officers, vested interested persons, anti-social elements, underworld, territories, nexalites, and other persons in general etc.,
(d) issue a Writ or direction to the respondents No.5 to constitute Special court in case of eventuality of prosecution against the Advocates and try the same in the Special Court or to Empower the existing Principal Sessions Judge of every District to conduct trial, as Principal Sessions Judge is 6 having power of an Special Judge for PC Act, this will bring equity in the justice system as presently all legislatures and parliamentary are protected with immunity under section 197 of Cr.P.C. and their Trial is being conducted in the Special Courts.
3. As far as prayer (a) is concerned, a writ of mandamus is sought against the Legislature to enact a law; even prayer (b) virtually seeks a direction from this Court to the respondents to make a statutory provision and even prayer (d) seeks similar relief inasmuch as it prays that the cases against the advocates should be tried by a Special Court. This cannot be done unless there is a proper legislation. Thus, except prayer (c), the petitioner is seeking a writ of mandamus directing the Legislature to legislate in a particular manner. The Law on this aspect is very clear. In the case of Union of India vs. Prakash P. Hinduja and another reported in (2003) 6 SCC 195, the Apex Court has held that no Court can direct a Legislature to enact a particular law. The aforesaid decision of the Apex Court has been constantly followed thereafter. Therefore, no relief can be granted in terms of prayers
(a), (b) and (d).
7
4. As far as prayer (c) is concerned, the petitioner has pointed out certain instances in paragraph 11 where attacks were made on the members of the Bar. Prayer (c) seeks a writ of mandamus against the Registrar General of this Court to provide adequate security to the Judicial Officers of the Trial Court and Sessions Court in the State of Karnataka. Further prayer is that the Registrar General be directed to provide adequate security to the parties.
5. As far as security to the Judicial Officers and to the premises of Courts is concerned, it is the obligation of the State Government to provide adequate security. The Registrar General has no power to provide security. It is obvious that the State is under an obligation to provide adequate security to the Court premises and to the Judicial Officers concerned as and when called upon by the Registrar General or by the concerned Judicial Officers. As regards the litigants and members of the Bar, if any of them have any threat perception, they can always apply to the police for grant of security. We are sure that if such applications are made, the concerned authority will take action in accordance 8 with law in the interest of administration of justice.
Subject to what is observed above, no relief can be granted in the writ petition, which is in the nature of a public interest litigation and the same is disposed of.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
JUDGE SN