Can Action Be Taken Against Advocates Who Passed Resolution To Not Represent Student Accused Of Sedition? Karnataka High Court Asks Bar Council

A division bench of Chief Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum, which is hearing a petition filed by Advocate Ramesh Naik. L, was told by the counsel appearing for Mysore District Bar Association that it had not issued the resolution.

Advocate Basavaraj S Sappanavar, submitted "I have not passed any resolution, my members have appeared for the said accused and my members have filed application and argued and obtained bail also for the accused." It was added by the counsel that the impugned resolution was issued by the Society(Mysore City Advocates Multipurpose Cooperative Society).

The bench pointed to the advocate representing Karnataka State Bar Council, who was present in the court to attend another matter, and said: "If members of this society are Advocates and are passing such resolutions which are contrary to law, you cannot be a silent spectator".

It added "The Supreme court says this is unprofessional conduct. Therefore, if members of this society are advocates, you must take action against them. Find out and take a stand on this"

During the hearing, the bench also questioned the counsel appearing for the Mysore District Bar Association, whether the Society was occupying space within the premises allotted to the Bar Association.

Chief Justice Oka asked "Whether this society is having office within the bar association premises?"

The counsel replied "I am unaware. The cooperative society has its own notice boards."

The bench persisted : "Answer our question, whether this society is occupying part of advocates association premises?"

"It is within the complex", the counsel finally said.

Following which the court observed "What action you are going to take if the society is indulging in illegality by passing such resolutions? What action the Bar association is going to take?"

The counsel replied by saying "Milords, I have no control over it." In response the court said "Then why are you allowing part of the office premises of the Bar association to be used by the society? If you have no control?"

The counsel then submitted "Milords they also have their own notice boards."

The bench then asked "Who has allowed this society to occupy space in the Bar association office." The counsel replied "I will take instructions in that regard and make further submission." The court retorted by saying "You must take action against this society, if it is using your premises and passing such illegal resolutions, you must take action."

In its order the bench recorded "Counsel for respondent 2, relies on an affidavit filed by the second respondent, in which it is clearly stated the respondent 2, has no role to play about the resolution. In fact members of the second respondent have appeared for the accused. However, counsel for respondent 2, seeks time to take instruction whether Mysore City Advocate's Multipurpose Cooperative Society is occupying any part of the premises allotted to the Bar association."

In his petition, Naik has said that the Executive Committee of the Mysore District Bar Association on January 16, passed a resolution to not to file vakalat and appear on behalf of 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.

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 vakalat on behalf of any accused person without sufficient cause, offends Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.

On January 27, 2020 a Mysuru court had granted anticipatory bail to the student booked over 'Free Kashmir' poster, while holding that the Freedom of Speech is necessary for the success of Democracy.