The movement to establish a Karnataka High Court bench in the coastal region has entered a critical phase, with regional advocates organizing a major consultative session to rally support for a decentralized judicial presence. Scheduled for October 16, 2026 , at the Indian Red Cross Building in Mangaluru, the "Consultative Meeting and Solidarity Programme" aims to solidify public backing for a circuit or permanent bench of the High Court . This initiative coincides with the formal commencement of an official feasibility study commissioned by the Chief Justice of the Karnataka High Court , Vibhu Bakhru.

The push for a local bench has intensified following a notification issued on September 29, 2026, which established a three-judge committee comprising Justice Anu Sivaraman, Justice S.G. Pandit, and Justice Mohammad Nawaz. This committee is tasked with conducting an extensive investigation into the viability of setting up either a circuit or permanent bench to serve the coastal and Malnad regions, including Mangaluru, Udupi, Shivamogga, Chikkamagaluru, Kodagu-Madikeri, Hassan, Davanagere, and Uttara Kannada. The committee is mandated to consult all relevant stakeholders before presenting its formal report to the High Court administration.

Confronting Geographic and Linguistic Barriers

For the United Legal Research and Justice Trust and the Bar Association of Mangaluru, the demand is rooted in the practical realities faced by thousands of litigants. Coastal residents, they argue, suffer from significant hardships due to the distance from Bengaluru, where the High Court currently maintains its primary seat. Beyond the physical travel requirements, the local legal community emphasizes that the current system is ill-suited to the linguistic and logistical needs of the region.

The Bar Association’s representation to the Chief Justice highlighted that a large percentage of litigants speak Tulu, Konkani, or Beary, creating substantial communication gaps when navigating the legal complexities in the capital. Furthermore, environmental factors—specifically the seasonal instability of the Shiradi, Sampaje, and Charmadi ghat roads due to monsoon-induced landslides—frequently sever access routes, preventing legal practitioners and their clients from attending hearings on short notice.

"Justice must reach the doorstep of the people," organizers stated, framing their campaign as a constitutional imperative under Articles 14 and 21. Beyond convenience, the bar argues that the current centralized model disproportionately impacts the poor, who struggle to absorb the costs and time commitments associated with long-distance litigation. The association has pointed toward specific data indicating an imbalance between case filings and final disposals in the region, suggesting that the current structure of judicial oversight is suboptimal for coastal inhabitants.

Implementing Statutory Mechanisms for Decentralization

The legal foundation for the current demand rests on Section 51(3) of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956. This provision empowers the Chief Justice, with the prior approval of the Governor, to direct that judges and division courts sit at venues other than the principal seat of the High Court. Proponents argue that the successful operation of permanent benches in Dharwad and Kalaburagi provides a clear, proven precedent that decentralization significantly enhances judicial efficacy.

In their formal correspondence to the Chief Justice, the Mangaluru Bar proposed a tiered approach, suggesting the establishment of at least one Division Bench and two Single Benches as a starting point. They pointed to the rising complexity of legal disputes in the region, including admiralty claims linked to the port city’s merchant shipping activity, and arbitration matters arising from petroleum and infrastructure contracts. These, the Bar contends, are "jurisdictional necessities" that warrant a permanent legal presence.

The proposal also addresses the technological limitations of the current digital infrastructure. Despite the push for e-filing, the Bar reports that the mandate to file physical copies often forces lawyers to travel to Bengaluru to resolve office objections, effectively neutralizing the advantages of modernization. Furthermore, the reliance on virtual hearings has proven inadequate, with stakeholders citing frequent disruptions due to poor connectivity, degraded audio quality, and dropped connections during critical legal arguments.

Addressing Institutional Opposition and Future Outlook

The initiative has not been met with universal approval. The Advocates' Association Bengaluru has actively opposed the creation of a Mangaluru circuit bench, characterizing the demand as "wholly unwarranted and premature." The association argues that any such expansion must be predicated on an empirical study and broader stakeholder consultation, rather than responding to political pressure. The Bengaluru-based body maintains that current resources should be prioritized for existing judicial infrastructure rather than dispersing human and financial capital across additional sites.

Despite this opposition, the movement has gathered momentum among regional leadership. Various legislators and local government representatives have expressed support across party lines, citing the potential for local economic growth and improved civil, criminal, and institutional dispute resolution. The request for the allocation of 10–15 acres of government land in Mangaluru for a future High Court complex further signals the ambition of the regional legal bodies to transition from a circuit-based arrangement to a permanent facility.

As the three-judge committee begins its assessment, the upcoming consultation meeting in Mangaluru serves as a pivotal forum for documenting these grievances and consolidating the community's arguments for the committee's review. The outcome of this feasibility study is expected to determine whether the judicial landscape of Karnataka will undergo a significant structural shift in the coming years. For now, the process remains in the consultative stage, with the court awaiting the expert findings of its committee to evaluate whether the evidence warrants a modification to the current High Court seating arrangements. All stakeholders await the committee's findings, which will be central to resolving the conflicting visions for the state's judicial future.