The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday, November 3, registered a suo motu public interest litigation to examine the safety and protection of advocates, taking cognizance of the murders of two lawyers in the State and an attempt on the life of a senior advocate, Verdictum and Bar and Bench reported. A Division Bench of Justice D K Singh and Justice H Shanthi Bhushan directed the Registry to register the PIL with the State, the police authorities, the Bar Council of India, the Karnataka State Bar Council and the Advocates' Association, Bengaluru, as respondents, and issued notice returnable on December 8, 2026.

Source: Verdictum

The Bengaluru Advocates' Association and the Karnataka State Bar Council had brought to the Court's notice the murders of advocates Sriram V. (reported on October 9, 2026) and Manjunath of Whitefield (reported on October 18, 2026), and the attempt to murder Senior Advocate Venkataramanappa Sannakki of Gauribidanur on October 28, 2026, Verdictum reported. Advocates across Karnataka abstained from judicial work on November 3 in protest, and the Association had resolved on October 29 to seek stronger non-bailable provisions in the Advocates Protection Act, an SOP on the treatment of advocates at police stations, directions against police settling civil disputes, and a court-monitored investigation in Manjunath's case.

Source: Verdictum

'Not a special privilege' — respect at police stations

"Advocates are not merely representatives of litigants; they are officers of the Court and partners in the administration and dispensation of justice," the Bench observed, according to Verdictum. "An Advocate must be able to represent the cause of his client fearlessly, without apprehension of physical harm, threat or intimidation." The Court called for a uniform SOP prescribing how advocates are to be received at police stations — at the least, "due respect, dignity and minimum professional courtesy" — clarifying this was not a special privilege but proper conduct by public servants. It also held that a police station "cannot be converted into a forum for adjudication of civil rights or settlement of disputes relating to property, possession, contractual obligations or other civil claims", noting that SOPs restraining police from interfering in civil disputes already exist but, the Bar alleged, are not followed at field level, and that such instructions "cannot remain confined to paper".

Source: Verdictum

The Court framed four issues — the safety of advocates, a uniform SOP on receiving advocates at police stations, strict implementation of the bar on police settling civil disputes, and the need to strengthen the Advocates Protection Act — Bar and Bench reported. It directed the State government to examine strengthening the existing statutory framework for advocates' protection and welfare, asked the Advocate General to file a status report on the investigations, and directed the police to furnish case-wise details — FIRs, arrests, material collected and further steps — of every case involving the murder of an advocate in Karnataka, with the DGP and IGP to file a verified consolidated statement by the next date.

Source: Bar and Bench

What happens next: the State and police must file their responses and reports before the December 8 hearing, when the Court will review the investigation details and the government's proposed legislative and administrative measures, LawTrend reported. The suo motu case puts advocate safety — raised by Bar bodies after three attacks in October — under direct High Court monitoring.

Source: LawTrend