Karnataka HC Initiates Suo Motu PIL on Advocates’ Safety After Two Murders, Attack on Senior Lawyer [Read Order]

Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court has initiated a suo motu public interest litigation on the safety and security of Advocates after the murders of two Advocates and an attempt on the life of a Senior Advocate. The court has also taken up the Bar’s complaint that police stations are settling civil disputes, and has sought details from the State and police.

A Division Bench of Justice D K Singh and Justice H. Shanthi Bhushan passed the oral order on 03.11.2026, acting on a representation by the President and office bearers of the Advocates’ Association, Bengaluru, and the Chairman and members of the Karnataka State Bar Council. They flagged increasing violence, threats and murders of Advocates across the State.

The representation cited the murders of Advocates Sriram V. (reported on 09.10.2026) and Manjunath (reported on 18.10.2026), and the attempt to murder Senior Advocate Venkataramanappa Sannakki of Gauribidanur on 28.10.2026. The Bar sought prompt registration of FIRs and investigation by a Special Investigation Team in such cases.

The court noted that the Advocates’ Association, at its General Body meeting on 29.10.2026, resolved to protest against the lack of security for Advocates and to seek a stronger Advocates Protection Act. Advocates across Karnataka abstained from work on 03.11.2026. The Bar demanded the arrest and conviction of the accused, stringent non-bailable provisions with at least 10 years’ punishment under the Act, an SOP on treatment of Advocates at police stations, a bar on settling civil disputes in police stations, and a court-monitored probe in Advocate Manjunath’s case.

The Bar further alleged that police stations were acting as parallel courts by entertaining civil disputes over property, possession and contractual obligations. The court noted that the Commissioner of Police and the Director General and Inspector General of Police have already framed SOPs restraining police interference in civil disputes. According to the Bar, field-level officers do not follow them.

Holding that the issues concern more than the Bar Association or the Bar Council alone, the court described the legal profession as noble and Advocates as officers of the Court and partners in the administration of justice. It observed that “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. It added that protection of Advocates is not a special privilege, but a means of ensuring they can work without fear.

On police conduct, the court said a uniform SOP is required prescribing how Advocates approaching police stations in connection with their professional duties are to be received, ensuring due respect, dignity and minimum professional courtesy, with action on misconduct. A separate SOP is needed for examining Advocates’ complaints against police officers under senior supervision, so that they are not dealt with mechanically.

On civil disputes, the court held that a police station cannot become a forum for adjudicating civil rights, and that repeated instructions cannot remain confined to paper. The State and the Police Department must specifically instruct all police stations not to entertain or settle civil disputes, except where a criminal offence requiring action in accordance with law is disclosed, with supervision and action against violators. The State must also examine strengthening the Advocates Protection Act through legislative and administrative measures.

Noting that the High Court of Bombay at Goa and the High Court for the State of Telangana have initiated similar suo motu proceedings, the court directed the Registry to register a Suo Moto PIL. It framed four issues: safety of Advocates, a uniform SOP for their treatment at police stations, strict implementation of SOPs against police involvement in civil disputes, and strengthening the Advocates Protection Act.

The Home Department and the DGP and IGP must place the existing SOPs and instructions on record, with steps taken to implement them and measures proposed to strengthen statutory protection. The police must also furnish a statement, verified by the DGP and IGP, with case-wise details of every murder of an Advocate in the State, covering the FIR, accused, arrests, charge-sheet status and reasons for any delay.

Notice was issued to the respondents, returnable on 08.12.2026, the next date of listing. The Advocate General was requested to accept notice for the State and the police authorities and to file a status report on the investigation, while the other respondents must file affidavits stating their stand.

Case Title: In Re: Murder of Advocates Sriram V. and Manjunath (Suo Moto) vs. State of Karnataka & Ors., Writ Petition (Suo Moto PIL), order dated 03.11.2026

[Read Order]