Karnataka HC Terms Mysuru Lawyer’s Body As Unprofessional

OVERVIEW 

The Karnataka High Court while hearing a petition which challenged the decision of the lawyer’s body to restrict lawyers from carrying out their duty. The Mysuru Bar Association was initially accused of passing a resolution restricting lawyers from appearing on behalf of one Nalini Balakumar. It was later claimed that the Mysore City Advocates Multipurpose Cooperative Society passed the resolution of such restriction.

A division bench headed by Chief Justice Abhay Oka remarked, "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," a report from Bar and Bench stated.

The Karnataka High Court went on to question the Karnataka State Bar Council for its failure to take action against such lawyer’s body for the passing of a resolution which prohibited them from representing the woman, Nalini, who had been charged with sedition for holding a 'Free Kashmir' placard during the anti-Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) protests in the premises of Mysuru University last year in 2020.

BACKGROUND

One Nalini Balakumar held a placard on which was written ‘Free Kashmir’ at an anti-CAA protest at Mysuru University in January 2020. Such photographs of her holding the said placard was published by media houses on various platforms caught the attention of the police. They singled Nalini out for inquiry and investigation about such protest.

Consequently, a case of sedition was filed against Nalini and the organiser of the protest. Nalini was granted anticipatory bail almost three weeks later. Such bail was granted by a Mysuru court on considering her lawyers’ argument which convinced the court that propagating any separatist ideology was neither her agenda not her intention. The case is still pending.

Subsequently, the Mysuru Bar Association had been accused of passing a resolution which restricted the lawyers who were members of such associations from representing her.

While the High Court was hearing the petition which challenged such decision lawyers’ body decision which restricted lawyers from carrying out their duty, thereby curbing the right of being represented and defended in order to be presented with justice, it was later alleged that the Mysore City Advocates Multipurpose Cooperative Society passed the resolution.

The High Court asked with regard to such circumstance if any notice had been issued to the Mysore City Advocates Multipurpose Cooperative Society. On inquiry, the Mysuru District Bar Association denied having passed any resolution. 
The Mysuru Bar Association and the Karnataka State Bar Council (KSBC) are respondents in the case. 

FURTHER DETAILS 

The petitioner, one Ramesh Naik had approached the High Court in an attempt to protect the rights of lawyers to represent people. He also intended to set an exemplary decision such that cases do not get politicised like this in the future.

Considering the right to practice law to be a Constitutional right, the petitioner Ramesh Naik said, "The same thing repeated in Hubballi in the sedition case against three Kashmiri students. My concern is that the rights of lawyers should be protected and KSBC's silence on the matter turned the situation in Nalini's case unpleasant and harmful. There should be no politicisation and lawyers should be allowed to represent a common person to get justice."

In February 2020, the Hubballi Bar Association was reported to have passed a similar resolution like that of Mysuru Bar Association which barred the lawyers from representing the three Kashmiri students, who were booked for sedition and labelled their actions of protest to have been ‘anti-national.’ In the resolution was further added that such decision had been communicated with the Karnataka State Bar Council (KSBC) that they had urged all the lawyers in the state not to represent them.

The Karnataka High Court rebuked the Hubballi Bar Association stating that such resolution of prohibiting the lawyers from representing the accused offender went not only against the principles of natural justice but also the rights of the accused of obtaining a defence.

CONCLUSION

The division bench hearing the case was headed by Chief Justice Shreeniwas Oka, who was assured that they will be issuing a notice to the Mysore City Advocates Multipurpose Cooperative Society on inquiring the KSBC whether any notice had been issued. On further inquiring the Society, it was discovered that the society had not passed any such resolution, as had been clarified by the Mysore District Bar Association. 

The petitioner advocate Ramesh Naik believed that had the KSBC could have avoided the unpleasantness of the matter by responding promptly to the situation. This matter has been listed for further hearing in the High Court.

WHAT IS YOUR OPINION REGARDING THE AUTHENTICITY OF SUCH RESOLUTION WHICH HINDERS THE RIGHT OF OBTAINING DEFENCE? LET US KNOW IN THE COMMENTS BELOW!