Karnataka HC Directs Advocate To Plant 1,000 Fruit-Bearing Saplings After Apology [Read Order]

Dharwad: The High Court of Karnataka has recalled its earlier directions for initiating criminal contempt and Bar Council proceedings against an advocate found to have threatened and hampered a Sessions Court during trial, after accepting his affidavit of apology, while directing him to pay a token fine and plant 1,000 fruit-bearing saplings as a reminder of the standards expected of the profession.

Justice Hanchate Sanjeevkumar passed a CAV order in Criminal Petition filed under Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Section 447 of the Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking transfer of Sessions Case No.5/2026 pending before the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Koppal, sitting at Gangavathi. Sri P.P. Hegde, learned Senior Counsel, along with Sri Sheelavant Vijay Kumar Maheshwarappa, appeared for the petitioners; Sri Gangadhar J.M., learned Additional Advocate General, appeared for the State; and Sri Ramesh B. Chilagari, Advocate, appeared for the second respondent.

By an earlier order dated 16.04.2026, the Court had dismissed the transfer petition with costs of Rs.1,00,000 payable by accused Nos.1 to 9 and 12 to the District Legal Services Authority, Koppal. While passing that order, the Court, upon perusing the order sheet maintained by the Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.5/2026, found that the advocate appearing for the accused, Sri S. Rangaswamy, had threatened the Sessions Court and hampered its proceedings. The Court accordingly directed that the matter be placed before the Chief Justice and the Advocate General for considering criminal contempt proceedings against him, directed the Karnataka State Bar Council to take action for professional misconduct, and directed the filing of a criminal complaint against him under Sections 186 and 228 of the Indian Penal Code, corresponding to Sections 221 and 267 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

Sri S. Rangaswamy subsequently requested the Court on 30.04.2026 to expunge the order initiating action against him, following which the Court directed him to appear in person and file an affidavit of apology. On 14.07.2026, Sri P.P. Hegde, learned Senior Counsel, and Sri V.M. Sheelvanth, appearing on his behalf, sought expunction of the remarks, submitting that they hampered his professional standing; the learned Additional Advocate General also submitted that the Court could take a lenient view.

The Court explained that it had been reluctant to pass strictures against the advocate, but was compelled to act after finding that Presiding Officers of the District Judiciary, though exercising judicial powers, are nonetheless in a vulnerable position and cannot publicly defend themselves against such conduct. It observed that silence in the face of such behaviour would only embolden similar conduct by others, and that safeguarding the dignity of Presiding Officers was necessary to enable them to discharge their duties without fear or favour.

Emphasising the constraints under which judicial officers function, the Court observed that “the Presiding Officers in the District Judiciary can only make observations in the order without expressing any opinion in the open Court... the Presiding Officers are voiceless outside the Court.”

In arriving at its conclusion, the Court surveyed the law on the duties and privileges of advocates and judges at length, drawing on decisions including Chetak Construction Ltd. v. Om Prakash, Mahabir Prasad Singh v. M/s. Jacks Aviation Pvt. Ltd., Sanjeev Datta v. Unknown, Indian Council of Legal Aid and Advice v. Bar Council of India, U.P. Sales Tax Service Assn. v. Taxation Bar Assn., Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India, and Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal v. Union of India, among others, reiterating that an advocate is an officer of the Court, bound to conduct himself with dignity and courtesy, and not to step into the shoes of his client.

Considering the affidavit of apology and the submissions made on the advocate's behalf, the Court accepted the apology and recalled the directions in its order dated 16.04.2026 insofar as they concerned initiation of criminal contempt proceedings, reference to the Karnataka State Bar Council, and initiation of criminal proceedings under the Indian Penal Code/Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, while keeping the remaining observations and the costs order intact. As a symbolic measure, the Court imposed a fine of Rs.1,000 payable to the District Legal Services Authority, Ballary, and directed Sri S. Rangaswamy to plant 1,000 fruit-bearing saplings on government or educational institution land and maintain them, with an affidavit of compliance to be filed on or before 31.10.2026. The matter was posted for further consideration on 02.11.2026.

Appearances:

For the Petitioners: Sri P.P. Hegde, Senior Counsel, with Sri Sheelavant Vijay Kumar Maheshwarappa, Advocate.

For Respondent No.1-State: Sri Gangadhar J.M., Additional Advocate General.

For Respondent No.2: Sri Ramesh B. Chilagari, Advocate.

Case Title: Ravi Basavaraj and Others vs. State of Karnataka and Another, Criminal Petition No. 100680 of 2026

[Read Order]