Karnataka HC demands action against lawyers body, restricting members from representing sedition accused

KARNATAKA HIGH COURT LAW INSIDER INKARNATAKA HIGH COURT LAW INSIDER IN

Kashish Jain

The Karnataka High Court has questioned the Karnataka State Bar Council for its failure to take action against a lawyer’s body. The Lawyer’s body in question has issued a resolution restricting its members from representing a woman accused of sedition. The High Court has deemed said body to be unprofessional. 

The Mysore-based lawyer’s body passed a resolution asking its members to refrain from representing Nalini Balakumar. Nalini Balakumar was charged with sedition for holding a ‘Free Kashmir’ placard while protesting the Citizenship Amendment Act. The incident of her arrest had taken place in the protests that were held at Mysore University. 

The Division Bench of the High Court has stated:

“Is it not unprofessional on the part of the lawyers to issue such a resolution? The Supreme Court has said this….Should you (KSBC) not take action against such lawyers. Look at the resolution, some member of the Bar has signed this…Bar Council must be proactive. These are societies of lawyers,” 

Said division bench was headed by Chief Justice Shreeniwas Oka. The Court was hearing the plea challenging the decision of the lawyer’s body that restricts advocates from representing the woman and thereby bars them from carrying out their duties. The Court asked the KSBC if they had issued a notice to the Mysore City Advocates Multipurpose Cooperative Society. The KSBC has responded to this by assuring the Court that they will be issuing a notice to that body in question. In an inquiry made with the society, it was discovered that the society did not pass the resolution. This was clarified by the Mysore District Bar Association. 

In the hearing, the petitioner advocate Ramesh Naik has stated that KSBC’s silence on the matter has been nothing short of disastrous. He believed that had the KSBC reacted in a manner that can be called prompt and timely, the unpleasantness could have been entirely avoided. The petitioner has also submitted that politicization of the Bar cannot be permitted.  This matter has been listed for further hearing. 

Related Post