2020 Supreme(Kar) 40
ABHAY S.OKA, MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
T. N. Raghupathy, S/o late Narayana Udupa – Appellant
Versus
High Court of Karnataka – Respondent
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Sri T.N. Raghupathy, Petitioner as party in person)
For the Respondent:Sri. S.S.Nagananda, Senior Counsel for Sri. Sriranga, Advocate, Sri. N.S.Prasad, Advocate, Smt. Akkamahadevi Hiremath, Advocate for Sri. D.N.Nanjunda Reddy, Senior Counsel for Sri.Tejas. N Advocate for Sri. Somanatha H, Advocate for Sri. R.C.Nagaraj, Advocate for Sri. D.L.N. Rao, Senior Counsel for Sri. S. Arun Prashant Popat, Advocate for Sri. D.N. Nanjunda Reddy, Senior Counsel For Sri. Bipin Hegde, Advocate for Smt. Akshaya B.M. Advocate for Sri. K.G. Raghavan, Senior Counsel for Sri. B.N. Prakash Advocate for Sri. Ashok Haranahalli, Senior Counsel for Sri. Pradeep Naik, Advocate for Prof. Ravivarma Kumar, Senior Counsel for Smt. Leela P Devadiga, Advocate for Sri. Madhusudan Naik, Senior Counsel for Sri. Ismail M Musba, Advocate for Sri. H.N. Narayan, Senior Counsel for Sri. Gauthamaditya S, Advocate for Sri. K. Puttegowda, Advocate for Sri. Rohan Kothari, Advocate for Sri. D.N.Nanjunda Reddy, Senior Counsel For Sri. Reuben Jacob, Advocate for Sri. C.Shashikantha, Additional Solicitor General for Respondent 5 Served
JUDGMENT :
“The vital role of the lawyer depends upon his probity and professional life-style. Be it remembered that the central function of the legal profession is to promote the administration of justice. If the practice of law is thus a public utility of great implications and a monopoly is statutorily granted by the nation, it obligates the lawyer to observe scrupulously those norms which make him worthy of the confidence of the community in him as a vehicle of justicesocial justice.”V.R. Krishna Iyer., J. In Bar Council of Maharashtra v. M.V. Dabholkar, (1976) 2 SCC 291, para para-15
This group of writ petitions raises many interesting issues. In a sense, these petitions are very peculiar where all the contesting parties are the members of the Bar. Though the High Court on the administrative side is a party, it is not a contesting party in that sense. In exercise of the powers conferred by subsection (1) of Section 34 read with Sub-Section (2) of Section 16 of the ADVOCATES ACT , 1961 (for short ‘the ADVOCATES ACT ’) and in accordance with the guidelines laid down by the Ape
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
