Per Ajit J. Gunjal J.,

1. An unsavory incident which took place on 2nd of March 2012 has resulted in a spate of writ petitions being filed before this Court seeking various reliefs including one for a direction to the State Government to entrust the Investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation (for short ‘CBI’). Various reliefs were sought for in the said writ petitions including a direction to some of the respondents, who are electronic media houses to telecast the clippings and videos showing the assault on innocent lawyers and also a direction to the Union of India to initiate action against Media for telecasting/publishing false information in the electronic and print media against the Advocates and for host of other reliefs.

2. Before considering the factual matrix of the case, it is necessary to reflect a little on these spate of writ petitions, which are filed. Suffice it to note that the present writ petition was listed before the Court raising certain office objections, which were sought to be rectified during the course of the day. This Court directed notice to the respondents. The matter was thereafter re-listed on 14.03.2012 and fresh notices were directed to unserved respondents, returnable by 21.03.2012. Eventually when the matter was listed before the Court on 21.03.2012, Mr. Harsha, Senior Managers (Operations), Legal Department appearing for respondent No.7 was directed to make available the entire footage, unedited taken on 02.03.2012. All the respondents were similarly directed to make available for the perusal and viewing of Court, the entire footage, unedited, taken on 02.03.2012. It is noticed that all the respondents have filed the footage taken on 2nd March 2012.

3. During this interregnum, the respondent-State Government had appointed Mr. R.K. Dutta, DGP (CID) as the Enquiry officer to investigate into the unsavory incident, which took place on 2nd March 2012. A report was submitted on 19.03.2012 and in the said report a reference is made to the video recorded copy of the CD given by the Advocate’s Association as referred to in the said report. The said CD is also filed in the Court. Eventually, when the matter was listed on 10.04.2012, this Court was of the view that it is needlessly time consuming for the Court to refer to the several PILs that have been filed in appending and therefore, it would be advantageous to consolidate all the allegations as well as the parties in one single petition. That would obviate the need for the other PILs to remain on the Board. It would also not require attention to be diverted from one pleading to another.

4. Several writ petitions, which were filed, were disposed of by separate orders and all the averments made in those writ petitions were amalgamated and by way of amendment, an application was filed. This Court granted the said application and accordingly amended petition was filed. This Court, having regard to the amalgamation of the reliefs, reserved liberty to the petitioners, whose writ petitions were disposed of, to approach this Court, to revive the writ petitions if technicality or necessity so arises. That is how we are seized with a single writ petition, which is filed by the Advocates Association, Bangalore for various reliefs.

5. Holmes J., in Northern Security Co. V/s. United States, (1903) 193 US 197 said:

“Great cases like hard cases make bad law. For great cases are called great, not by reason of their real importance in shaping the law of the future, but because of some accident of immediate overwhelming interest which appeals to the feelings and distorts the judgment. These immediate interests exercise a kind of hydraulic pressure which makes what previously was clear seem doubtful, and before which even well settled principles of law will bend.”

With these prefatory words we may now proceed to state the facts of these writ petitions.

6. The factual matrix of the incident can be succinctly stated as under:

On 2nd March 2012,