SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 56044

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
Suo Moto – Appellant
Versus
Karnataka – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO. …….OF …….(SUO MOTO PIL)



##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU WRIT PETITION NO. …….OF …….(SUO MOTO PIL)

03.11.2026 RE: In the matter of murder of two Advocates by name Sriram V. and Manjunath and attempt to murder of Senior Advocate Venkataramanappa Sannakki and other connected matters.

BETWEEN: SUO MOTO.

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU.

2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU. 3. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL AND INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, KARNATAKA STATE, BENGALURU.

4. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, BENGALURU CITY, BENGALURU.

5. THE JURISDICTIONAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, BENGALURU CITY.

6. BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA

21, ROUSE AVENUE INTERNATIONAL AREA NEW DELHI-110 002.

7. KARNATAKA STATE BAR COUNCIL OLD K.G.I.D. BUILDING DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001.

##PAGE2##

8. THE ADVOCATES' ASSOCIATION, BENGALURU. ... RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN

ORAL ORDER

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)

The President and office bearers of the Advocates Association, Bengaluru, as well as the Chairman and members of the Karnataka State Bar Council, have brought to the notice of this Court the increasing incidents of violence, assaults, threats and murders of Advocates at different places in the State of Karnataka, including Bengaluru. They have requested this Court to take cognizance of the matter and initiate appropriate proceedings in public interest, particularly to ensure adequate protection and security to Advocates while discharging their professional duties.

2. In the representation submitted, they have referred to certain disturbing incidents, particularly the brutal and cold- blooded murders of Advocates by name Sriram V. reported on 09.10.2026 and Manjunath reported on 18.10.2026 and another incident involving the attempt to murder of Senior Advocate Venkataramanappa Sannakki of Gauribidanur on 28.10.2026.

##PAGE3##

These incidents have caused considerable shock and apprehension amongst the members of the legal fraternity. Their grievance is that incidents of murder and attempts to murder Advocates are being reported at different places in the State and that adequate preventive measures have not been taken by the concerned authorities. They have sought immediate intervention to ensure that Advocates are able to discharge their professional obligations without fear or intimidation. They have also sought appropriate directions to the police authorities for prompt registration of FIRs and effective investigation through a Special Investigation Team in cases involving offences against Advocates.

3. The representation further states that the Advocates Association, Bengaluru, in its General Body Meeting held on 29.10.2026, resolved to protest against the lack of security to Advocates in the discharge of their professional duties and to seek appropriate strengthening of the legislation concerning their protection. In pursuance of the said resolution, members of the legal fraternity throughout the State of Karnataka have abstained from judicial work today, i.e., 03.11.2026, seeking effective measures to strengthen the Advocates Protection Act and to ensure adequate safeguards for members of the Bar.

##PAGE4##

4. Apart from the incidents of physical violence against Advocates, the representatives of the Bar have also brought to the notice of this Court another serious grievance concerning the functioning of police stations. It is alleged that, in several instances, police stations have assumed the role of parallel courts by entertaining civil disputes between private parties and attempting to settle such disputes within the police station itself. It is their contention that the police authorities, in the absence of any statutory authority, cannot assume the role of adjudicating civil rights or settling disputes relating to property, possession, contractual obligati

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top