Any Resolution Passed To Deny Legal Representation To Person Arrested Over 'Free Kashmir' Poster? Karnataka HC Asks Mysore Bar Association

The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday directed the Mysore District Bar Association, to by January 19, 2021, produce on record of the court the resolution, if any, passed by it along with its statement of objections precluding all its members from representing Nalini Balakumar, the student who was indicted on the charges of Sedition for holding a 'Free Kashmir' placard during the anti-CAA protests at the Mysore University campus on January 8.

A division bench of Chief Justice Abhay Oka and Justice S Vishwajith Shetty issued the direction while hearing a plea filed by Advocate Ramesh Naik. L.

As per the plea, the Executive Committee of the Mysore District Bar Association on January 16, passed a resolution to not to file vakalath and appear on behalf Nalini, stating that she is accused as 'Anti-National'. Naik has alleged that the Association did not stop at that and it went on to attach a copy of the resolution at multiple locations of Mysore City Court Complex and sent warning messages through print/electronic media to all its Advocate members to abide by its decision, otherwise stringent action would be taken.

He has argued that a great deal of Advocate members do not support this resolution and there has been a lot of verbal conflict regarding this with the Association, but in vain. He submitted that a representation against the said resolution was also made before the Karnataka State Bar Council, which has not bothered to respond till date.

The Petitioner has thus moved the high court, seeking to put down politicization of the Bar and seeking that appropriate directions be issued to the Respondent to not act against the Right, Privileges and interest of the Advocates of Mysore District.

Naik has contended that Section 6 (d) and (dd) of the Advocate Act, 1961 imposes a duty upon the Karnataka State Bar Council, 'to safeguard the rights, privileges and interest of Advocates on its roll" and 'to promote the growth of Bar Associations for the purpose of effective implementation of the welfare scheme' respectively. Hence any inaction on its part in this regard, amounts to violation of the aforesaid provisions of the Advocates Act, 1961.

"Legal profession is the noblest and dignified. It commands great honour. The practice of Advocacy has the public utility flavor. An Advocate is to do his part individually and as a member of the organized Bar to improve his profession, the Court and the law. In a free society Advocate has a responsibility of acting as an intelligent, unselfish leader of public opinion," the Petitioner has stressed.

It is also argued that the Right to Practice is a Fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. Thus, the decision of the Mysore District Bar Association or anyone for that matter, to restrict any of its Advocate members not to file vakalath on behalf of any accused person without sufficient cause, offends Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.

On January 27, a Mysuru court had granted anticipatory bail to the student, while holding that the Freedom of Speech is necessary for the success of Democracy.

Earlier, the bench led by Chief Justice Oka had come down heavily on the resolution passed by the Hubli Bar Association vowing to not represent Kashmiri students arrested for sedition over alleged pro-Pakistan slogans. The Court summoned the officials of the Bar Association for explanation. Following the strictures of the Court, the Association withdrew the resolution.