The High Court of Karnataka has formally initiated suo motu public interest litigation to address the alarming rise in violence, targeted threats, and murders involving legal professionals across the state. This judicial intervention, prompted by the recent killings of advocates Sriram V. and Manjunath, as well as the attempted murder of Senior Advocate Venkataramanappa Sannakki, highlights a growing concern regarding the safety and professional autonomy of members of the bar. By taking cognizance of these incidents, the Court has signaled that the protection of advocates is not merely a matter of individual security but a fundamental requirement for maintaining the independence of the judicial system.

Addressing the Escalating Cycle of Violence

The decision to initiate proceedings follows urgent representations submitted by the Advocates' Association, Bengaluru, and the Karnataka State Bar Council. These bodies reported a climate of fear among legal practitioners, exacerbated by a perceived lack of preventive measures from law enforcement agencies. The brutal nature of the recent attacks, which occurred in October 2026, has forced the legal community to halt judicial work across the state to demand immediate legislative reform. In their submissions, the associations emphasized that advocates acting on behalf of clients often face intimidation, leaving them vulnerable to physical harm.

The bench, comprising Justice D.K. Singh and Justice H. Shanthi Bhushan, underscored that legal professionals are indispensable partners in the delivery of justice. A critical observation from the bench noted: “An attack upon an Advocate, particularly one resulting in the loss of life, cannot be viewed as an isolated incident, since it also affects the independence of the Bar and the administration of justice.” This judicial focus emphasizes that the legal profession’s ability to function without fear is essential for the rule of law. The Court has directed the State Government and relevant police authorities to provide a detailed, case-wise report on the status of investigations into the murders of these advocates, including the details of arrests, evidence collected, and current filing status of charge sheets.

Reining in Police Overreach in Civil Disputes

Beyond the immediate crisis of physical violence, the Court has also addressed a significant grievance regarding the systemic misuse of police power. It has been alleged that police stations in various jurisdictions are increasingly functioning as "parallel courts," where officers intervene in private civil disputes involving property, contractual obligations, and possession. Despite existing Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) that prohibit such interference, the legal fraternity contends that these directives are routinely ignored by field-level officers, including inspectors and sub-inspectors.

The Court observed that such practices not only undermine the jurisdictional limits of the police force but also contribute to an atmosphere of lawlessness that impacts the legal profession. As part of its directives, the bench has ordered that the Government of Karnataka must ensure that all police stations receive explicit instructions to cease the unauthorized adjudication of civil claims. Furthermore, the Court has called for the formulation of a new, uniform SOP that prescribes how advocates should be treated when they approach police stations for professional duties. The goal is to ensure that lawyers are granted the dignity and minimum professional courtesy required to discharge their duties, rather than being treated as intruders in the investigative process. The Court emphasized that this is not about special privileges for lawyers, but about maintaining the decorum and professional conduct expected of public servants.

Institutional Reform and Future Legislative Measures

The Court has also directed the State to consider strengthening the existing statutory framework, specifically the Advocates Protection Act. The current wave of violence has exposed potential gaps in legal safeguards, and the bench has requested the State Government to provide a response regarding the legislative and administrative measures it proposes to implement to bolster the welfare and protection of lawyers. The Court maintained that the concerns of the Bar cannot be addressed through mere assurances and requires substantive legal reforms that include an effective mechanism for implementation.

A significant component of the Court’s order involves the creation of a dedicated mechanism for advocates to file complaints against police misconduct. These complaints, the Court directed, should not be dealt with mechanically by the very establishments accused of wrongdoing. Instead, they must be examined under the supervision of senior police officers to ensure that grievances are addressed fairly and within a reasonable timeframe.

The State of Karnataka, represented by the Advocate General, is tasked with placing these reports and proposals before the Court. The respondents, including the Home Department, the Director General and Inspector General of Police, and the Commissioner of Police, are required to file their affidavits detailing their compliance and future strategies. As the matter proceeds, the legal community awaits the hearing scheduled for December 8, 2026. The Court’s proactive stance reflects an urgent need to restore the safety of the Bar and to ensure that the administration of justice remains free from intimidation, violence, or unauthorized interference by law enforcement. The outcome of these proceedings will likely serve as a crucial benchmark for the protection of legal practitioners in Karnataka and potentially influence broader administrative reforms in the police department.