Please open the PDF and clink on the required link.

Daksha Legal Monthly Digest – September 2022.
(Please click on the link to access the Judgement)

Karnataka High Court (Principal Bench) has, perhaps for the first time, disposed cases more than the filing rate.

The “Virtual Justice Clock” (digital information provided on the Karnataka High Court website) gives monthly details of “cases instituted in last month” and “cases disposed in last month” apart from other details such as (1) Cases filed by Senior Citizen (2) Cases filed by Woman (3) Cases pending for last 1 year, 1 to 3 years, 3 to 5 years, 5 to 10 years, 10 to 20 years, 20 to 30 years and above 30 years.

The cases instituted in September in the Principal Bench of the Karnataka High Court were 6594 and the disposed cases were 6977 i.e. more than 400 cases.

The cases instituted in September in the Dharwad Bench of the Karnataka High Court were 2119 and the disposed cases were 2007.

The cases instituted in September in the Principal Bench of the Karnataka High Court were 1074 and the disposed cases were 770.

The increase in number of judges has also contributed to disposal of cases. However, the fact remains that the efficiency of the Karnataka High Court in the matter of disposal of cases on merits has always been exemplary.

I had the opportunity of hearing the speech delivered by Justice  Sudhanshu Dhulia, Judge, Supreme Court of India in the Bar Council Seminar held in Guwahati on 10 September 2022. His lordship said “I am not so much worried about pendency of cases . I am worried about the day a client loses faith in the judicial system and stops approaching the Courts.”

While this is the harsh reality, interim orders granted by the Constitutional Courts and pendency of cases certainly act as deterrent for the Executive from indulging in arbitrary and illegal acts. An interim order granted in one matter will prevent the subordinate Courts and the Executive from passing illegal orders.

There was a Judge in Karnataka High Court (who ultimately made his way to SC as CJ) who was known for his infamous “Consider and Pass Orders” decisions. Thousands and thousands of cases which ought to have been heard on merits and ‘decided’ were ‘disposed’ under this “Consider and Pass Orders” category resulting in grave injustice. Such practice cannot be certainly called speedy justice.

Fortunately we see the finest combination of patient hearing and deciding of cases on merits in Karnataka High Court. There is a perfect balance in this regard. I am sure unnecessary pendency of cases will be a thing of the past soon with the hard-work and strong determination being exhibited both by the Judges and the Lawyers.

S.Basavaraj, Senior Advocate and Chairman, Karnataka State Bar Council Law Academy, Bengaluru

-Ms. Nayana Tara B.G, Advocate, Bengaluru
If the life and ways of Justice E.S. Venkataramiah are to be stated in a nutshell, the line that instantly comes to mind is one by Rudyard Kipling “if you can walk with Kings nor lose the common touch.
Continue reading… pdf enclosed.

Read the Judgment

Mahesh P S  vs State of Karnataka
Criminal Petition 4909 of 2022. Daily Order dated 11 July 2022
Justice H P Sandesh

The Special Counsel appearing for ACB placed the investigation materials collected till date as directed by this Court in a sealed cover and the same is taken on record.

2. The Registrar (Judicial) also placed on record the details of B-reports, which have been received from 18 districts of the State and the same are placed on record. The Registrar (Judicial) submits that report from the remaining districts is yet to be received.

3. Sri Prasanna Kumar, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) placed the report on record in compliance with the order dated 07.07.2022 and the same is taken on record. The report discloses that the raid conducted on the residential house of ADGP.

4. This Court would like to make it clear that the learned counsel Sri Ashok Haranahalli appears and submits that SLP is filed before the Apex Court by ACB and he is not the counsel for ACB before this Court and he also states that there cannot be any attack on the judiciary while dispensing the justice and it amounts to attack on the independence of judiciary and insist for revealing the threat. When this matter was heard on 29.06.2022, this Court found inaction on the part of the ACB in arraigning the real accused inspite of the material against the Deputy Commissioner and not shown enthusiastic investigation and hence observed the same during the proceedings and the matter was adjourned to 04.07.2022. In the meanwhile, on account of superannuation of the Hon’ble Chief Justice, a dinner was arranged by this Court to bid farewell on 01.07.2022. “A Hon’ble sitting Judge came and sat by the side of me and stated that he received a call from Delhi (not disclosed the name) and said that the person who called from Delhi, enquired about me and immediately I replied that I am not affiliated to any political party and the Hon’ble Judge did not stop the same there itself and further said that ADGP is from North India and he is powerful and also gave an instance of transfer of Senior Judge of this Court to some other State and told that for no mistake on his part, he was transferred and chances of one side feeding to them” and the same is nothing but an attack on the independence of judiciary and interference in dispensation of justice. Thus, this Court when found inaction on the part of ACB in not properly investigating the matter and a threat was made to summon the Service Record (SR) of the ADGP. On perusal of the SR, for the period of assessment 2009-2010, the Reviewing Authority, a remark was made that the Officer has to give adequate attention to police image while performing his duties or supervising the duties of subordinate officers/ranks. It is further observed in column No.9 that lesser strength are loose supervision, soft going on subordinates, inability to say ‘No’. For the year 2008-2009 i.e., from 01.04.2008 to 31.03.2009, the remark is that his ability to take tough stand shall improve. It is emerged in the service record that he was working as S.P. in Bellary and he was transferred and within six days again got it transferred to Bellary and the counsel for CBI submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court is monitoring the mining case and CBI raid was conducted on the residence of the ADGP.

5. Apart from that, the Deputy Director of DPAR submits the records regarding the CBI raid in respect of residence of ADGP, wherein found material, requires an enquiry and requested the State Government to enquire into the matter and now the CBI report is also placed on record and the learned Standing Counsel for CBI submits that not received any enquiry report from the State Government. On perusal of material it is clear that CBI conducted the raid on the residential house of ADGP on 05.04.2013 and found material to enquire the matter and the same is not reached to the logical end. When all these materials are found and also the B-reports which have been submitted by ACB, in respect of 5 matters only ACB has given the details and other 99 B-reports are dumped to the Court without giving any details like crime, offences, status of B-report. Hence, this Court summoned the details from the respective Courts through the Registrar (Judicial). Having taken note of no details are given and the way in which the officer who is in helm of affairs not assisted the Court, found that the same is not done in the interest of public as observed by this Court in the order dated 07.07.2022 wherein this Court cited the judgment of the Apex Court wherein it is held that if the investigation is not proceeding legally, Court can take note of the public interest as the sole consideration and a Constitutional Court monitors an investigation only when circumstances compel it to do so, such (illustratively) a lack of enthusiasm by the Investigating Officer or agency (due to ‘pressures’ on it) in conducting a proper investigation, or a lack of enthusiasm by the concerned Government in assisting the investigating authority to arrive at the truth, or a lack of interest by the investigating authority or the concerned Government to take the investigation to its logical conclusion for whatever reason, or in extreme cases, to hinder the investigation.

6. In the case on hand also lack of enthusiasm and the investigation not taken place legally and not assisted the Court by ACB properly and the said circumstances forced to call all the details including SR as well as B-reports which have been submitted before the Trial Courts that is only in the interest of public and the Constitutional Court monitors the investigation only when the circumstances compel it to do so. The ACB, only after this Court found the material and on observation of the Court, arraigned the Deputy Commissioner as accused and arrested him and also conducted the raid on the house of Deputy Commissioner. The B-report also discloses that the accused are let-off by making the accused to refund the bribe money and not considered the digital material regarding demand and acceptance.

7. Having discussed above, it is appropriate to direct the Chief Secretary and DPAR that while posting the officers that too in a institution which is established for prevention of corruption to take note of the public interest and should not be posted any tainted officer to the helm of affairs of the institution which is established to prevent the corruption.

8. The Chief Secretary before posting an officer for the office which is established for prevention of corruption, shall consider the officer is having credibility/integrity and also take note of antecedents while posting to take the institution to the great height.

9. The Secretary to the DPAR also shall bring it to the notice of the Chief Secretary while posting an officer in helm of affairs of prevention of corruption in ACB, to furnish all the details regarding the service records as well as the integrity of the officer. The other day, a mention was made before the Court by the Deputy Secretary of DPAR that due to the pressure, the same cannot be done and should not yield to such pressure in the interest of the public.

10. The posting should not be considered either by external influence or internal influence and the same cannot be a criteria while posting the officers to the institution.

11. The officers who have to be posted to prevent the corruption, their family members or any other persons should not be facing any investigation either by ACB or Lokayukta or otherwise, the family members or relatives who are facing the investigation by ACB or Lokayukata, may take advantage of the same.

12. While posting the officers, not to post the officers who have faced the traps or enquiry conducted by the ACB or Lokayukta.

13. The Special Counsel appearing for ACB has filed a memo stating that Special Leave Petition (SLP (Crl.) Provisional Application No.13963-2022) is filed before the Apex Court challenging the order dated 07.07.2022 and the said petition is listed on 12.07.2022 and prays this Court to adjourn the matter and the said memo is taken on record and the Special Counsel appearing for ACB is directed to furnish a copy of the said memo along with its enclosures to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner since copy is not served.

14. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner opposes for the adjournment sought by the Special Counsel appearing for ACB on the ground that the matter has been moved before the Apex Court against the order dated 07.07.2022 and the same is not bearing on the bail petition. The matter is listed tomorrow before the Apex Court and hence it is appropriate to grant two days time keeping in view of the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the personal liberty of a person who is in custody is also involved.

15. The registry is directed to communicate this order to the Chief Secretary as well as to the Secretary to the DPAR forthwith.

16. The Registrar (Judicial) is directed to keep the further investigation materials furnished before the Court by ACB in safe custody.

17. List the matter on 13.07.2022 at 2.30 p.m., to hear the bail petition.

S.Basavaraj, Senior Advocate and Chairman, Karnataka State Bar Council Law Academy

On Friday, (8 July 22) a learned Judge of the Karnataka High Court had to advise a junior advocate not to use ‘Yea’ in the Court while arguing.

I have seen many young lawyers using such Law college campus language. Few say ‘Ok’, ‘Thanks’ etc.

Few years ago, there was a joke doing the rounds that a HC Judge’s lawyer son after getting interim order from another HC Judge said “Thank you uncle”!.  This might not be true. But I have seen many young lawyers using “thanks my lord“.

The College campus language is difficult to give up. However, it has no place when you take up a serious profession like Advocacy.

Instead of ‘Ok’ or ‘Thanks’ please say ‘I am obliged’ or ‘I am grateful’ or simply ‘much obliged’.

Justice Ramachandraiah of Karnataka High Court in his reply speech to farewell given by the Advocates Association Bangalore lamented at the Lawyers saying; “my friend is making a false statement” or “my friend is misleading the court”. Such blatant accusations do not gel with noble profession he said. He advised to say “the statement of my learned friend is factually incorrect” or “my learned friend is making out of the record statement”.

Another mistake most of us commit is addressing a person without affixing Mr. or Mrs. My senior Mr. S.Vijay Shankar, Senior Advocate and former AG never ever addressed anyone without the prefix Mr. or Mrs. He would call even his steno as Mr. so & so. When you are arguing, please add prefix Mr. or Mrs, be it your counterpart or the litigant. This will only add elegance to your language.

Recently, I came across a gentleman obtaining reply from the High Court of Karnataka under the RTI Act as to whether it wasn’t permissible to sit cross-legged in court. In my 33 years of practice whenever I sit on the front row (immediately after the arguing Bar), I make sure I never cross legs. It is not that you are showing utmost humility or humbleness to the Judge. It is just that you are maintaining personal discipline. I want to ask the above gentleman whether he would sit cross-legged in front of a Minister or the Governor when he meets them for his personal work.

Another rude behaviour is to exchange words with the counterpart during the arguments. This trivializes court proceedings. Very often, we interject when the opposite counsel is arguing either to correct a mistake or to state factually correct fact. We even intervene when the Judges speak. This is, to an extent, part of arguments. But never ever exchange words with the opponent counsel across the Bar to make it a verbal war. As I said one can intervene, if it is absolutely necessary and with the permission of the court. But all such statements or clarifications must be addressed to the Court/Judge and not to the opposite counsel.

Whenever you submit photocopies of the judgments to the Court, please make sure your opponent counsel also gets copies. It is a good gesture involving very little expenditure. This will also prevent unnecessary adjournments.

Never take adjournment without informing the opposite lawyer. On many occasions I waited for my matter almost whole day only to realise that the opposite counsel had taken adjournment at the beginning of the court proceedings. This practice is still in vogue putting the advocates in practical difficulties.

Remember, self-discipline is the best way to build and enrich the institution. Good mannerisms will go a long way in shaping the advocacy & remain beacon of light in posterity.

ಇತ್ತೀಚೆಗೆ ಚಿಕ್ಕನಾಯಕನಹಳ್ಳಿ, ಕೊರಟಕಗೆರೆ ಹಾಗೂ ಮಧುಗಿರಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಆಯೋಜಿಸಿದ್ದ ಕಾರ್ಯಕ್ರಮಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಭಾಗವಹಿಸಿದ ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ಉಚ್ಚನ್ಯಾಯಲಯದ ನ್ಯಾಯಮೂರ್ತಿ ಆರ್. ನಟರಾಜ್ ಮಾತನಾಡಿ, “ಸಿವಿಲ್ ವ್ಯಾಜ್ಯಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯವು ಹಲವಾರು ಕಾರಣಗಳಿಗೆ ದ0ಡ (Cost) ವಿಧಿಸುವಾಗ ಈ ಮೊತ್ತವನ್ನು ವಕೀಲರ ಸ0ಘಗಳಿಗೆ ಪಾವತಿ ಮಾಡುವ0ತೆ ಆದೇಶಿಸುವುದು ಉತ್ತಮ” ಎ0ದು ಅಭಿಪ್ರಾಯಪಟ್ಟರು.

ಇ0ದು ಹಲವಾರು ತಾಲೂಕು ಹಾಗೂ ಜಿಲ್ಲಾ ವಕೀಲರ ಸ0ಘಗಳು ಹೊಸ ಕಟ್ಟಡಗಳನ್ನು ಹೊ0ದಿವೆ. ಆದರೆ ಒ0ದು ಬಾರಿ ವಕೀಲರ ಸ0ಘಗಳಿಗೆ ಕಟ್ಟಡವನ್ನು ಹಸ್ತಾ0ತರಿಸದ ನ0ತರ ಈ ಕಟ್ಟಡಗಳನ್ನು ನಿರ್ವಹಣೆ ಮಾಡುವುದು ಕಷ್ಟಕರ. ವಕೀಲರ ಸ0ಘಗಳಿಗೆ ಬರುವ ಆದಾಯ ಬಹಳೆ ಕಡಿಮೆ. ವಕೀಲರು ನೀಡುವ ಶುಲ್ಕ ಬಿಟ್ಟರೆ ಬೇರೆ ಯಾವ ರೀತಿಯ ಆದಾಯವೂ ಇರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ. ಕೆಲವು ವಕೀಲರ ಸ0ಘಗಳ0ತೂ ಬಹಳ ದಾರುಣ ಸ್ತಿತಿಯಲ್ಲಿವೆ. ಸ0ಘಗಳನ್ನು ಸ್ವಚ್ಚಗೊಳಿಸುವುದರಿ0ದ ಹಿಡಿದು ಬೇರೆ ಎಲ್ಲ ಕೆಲಸಗಳನ್ನು ನಡೆಸಲು ಹಣದ ಕೊರತೆ ಇದೆ.

ತಾಲೂಕು ಮತ್ತು ಜಿಲ್ಲಾ ಮಟ್ಟದಲ್ಲಿ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯಗಳು ಪ್ರತಿ ತಿ0ಗಳೂ ರೂ. 25,000 ರಿ0ದ ರೂ. 50,000/- ರ ವರೆಗೆ ದ0ಡ ವಿಧಿಸುತ್ತವೆ. ಈ ದ0ಡಗಳು ಸಿವಿಲ್ ವ್ಯಾಜ್ಯಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ವ್ಯಾಜ್ಯವು ಮುಂದೂಡಿದಾಗ, ವಿಳಂಬ ಮನ್ನಾ ಮಾಡುವಾಗ ವಿದಿಸಲ್ಪಡುತ್ತವೆ. ಈ ದ0ಡಗಳನ್ನು ಆಯಾ ವಕೀಲರ ಸ0ಘಗಳಿಗೆ ಪಾವತಿ ಮಾಡುವ0ತೆ ಆದೇಶಿಸದರೆ ವಕೀಲರ ಸ0ಘಗಳಿಗೆ ಅತ್ಯ0ತ ಉಪಯೋಗವಾಗುತ್ತದೆ.

ಈ ನಿಟ್ಟಿನಲ್ಲಿ ಮಾನ್ಯ ನ್ಯಾಯಾದೀಶರ ಅಭಿಪ್ರಾಯ ಸ್ವಾಗತಾರ್ಹ.

ಎಸ್. ಬಸವರಾಜ್, ಹಿರಿಯ ವಕೀಲ, ಬೆ0ಗಳೂರು.

ಇತ್ತೀಚೆಗೆ ಸಿವಿಲ್ ನ್ಯಾಯಾದೀಶರ ಪರೀಕ್ಷೆಗೋಸ್ಕರ ಪುಸ್ತಕವೊ0ದನ್ನು ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ರಾಜ್ಯ ವಕೀಲರ ಪರಿಷತ್ ವತಿಯಿ0ದ ರಿಯಾಯಿತಿ ದರದಲ್ಲಿ ಕೊಡಿಸುವ ಪ್ರಯತ್ನದಲ್ಲಿದ್ದಾಗ, ಹೆಚ್ಚಿನ ಸ0ಖ್ಯೆಯ ಅಭ್ಯರ್ಥಿಗಳು “ಕನ್ನಡದಲ್ಲಿ ಪುಸ್ತಕ ಇದ್ದರೆ ತಿಳಿಸಿ“ ಅ0ತ ಕೋರಿದ್ದರು.

ಕನ್ನಡದಲ್ಲಿ ಕಾನೂನು ಕಲಿಯುತ್ತಿರುವ, ಕಲಿತಿರುವ ವಕೀಲರ ಸ0ಖ್ಯೆ ಇ0ದು ಬಹಳೆ ಇದೆ.

ಆದರೆ ಬರೀ ಕನ್ನಡದಲ್ಲಿಯೇ ಕಾನೂನು ಪದವಿ ಗಳಿಸಿದ ಈ ವಕೀಲರ ಮು0ದಿನ ಭವಿಷ್ಯವೇನು ಎ0ದು ಯೋಚಿಸೋಣ.

ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ರಾಜ್ಯ ವಕೀಲರ ಪರಿಷತ್ ವತಿಯಿ0ದ ನಡೆಯುವ ಕಾರ್ಯಾಗಾರಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಭಾಗವಹಿಸಿದಾಗಲೆಲ್ಲ ವಕೀಲರಿಗೆ ಆ0ಗ್ಲ ಭಾಷೆಯನ್ನು ವೃಧ್ದಿಸಿಕೊಳ್ಳಲು ಕೋರಿದ್ದೇನೆ. ಬರೀ ಕನ್ನಡದಲ್ಲಿಯೇ ಕಾನೂನು ಕಲಿತ ವಕೀಲರು ಜೀವನ ಪೂರ್ತಿ ಕೀಳರಿಮೆಯಿ0ದ ವೃತ್ತಿಜೀವನ ಮಾಡಬೇಕಾಕುತ್ತದೆ ಎ0ದು ಕೂಡ ಕಾಳಜಿ ವ್ಯಕ್ತಪಡಿಸಿದ್ದೇನೆ.

ಹಾಗ0ತ ಕನ್ನಡದಲ್ಲಿ ಕಾನೂನು ಕಲಿತ ವಕೀಲರ ಜ್ನಾನ, ಪ್ರಬುದ್ಡತೆ ಹಾಗೂ ಚಾಣಾಕ್ಷತೆಯನ್ನು ಪ್ರಶ್ನಿಸುತ್ತಿಲ್ಲ. ಆದರೆ ಆ0ಗ್ಲ ಭಾಷೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ವಾದ ಮಾಡುವ ವಕೀಲರ ಮು0ದೆ ಈ ವಕೀಲರು ಸ್ವಲ್ಪ ಕೀಳರಿಮೆಗೆ ಒಳಗಾಗುತ್ತಿರುವುದು ಸತ್ಯ.

ಕೆಲ ತಿ0ಗಳ ಹಿ0ದೆ ಉಚ್ಚನ್ಯಾಯಲಯದಲ್ಲಿ ಕನ್ನಡದಲ್ಲಿ ವಾದ ಮಾಡಲು ಶುರು ಮಾಡಿದ ವಕೀಲರಿಗೆ ಹಿರಿಯ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಮೂರ್ತಿಗಳು “Mr. Counsel, this is High Court. The official language of the High Court is English. So please argue in English” ಎ0ದು ಹೇಳಿದ್ದನ್ನು ಕೇಳಿದ್ದೇನೆ. ಹಿರಿಯ ನ್ಯಾಯಮೂರ್ತಿಗಳು ಹೇಳಿದ್ದು ಸತ್ಯ. ಉಚ್ಚನ್ಯಾಯಲಯದ ಅಧಿಕೃತ ಭಾಷೆ ಇ0ಗ್ಲೀಷ್.

ನಾನು ಹತ್ತನೆ ತರಗತಿವರೆಗೆ ಕನ್ನಡ ಮಾದ್ಯಮದಲ್ಲಿಯೇ ವಿಧ್ಯಾಬ್ಯಾಸ ಮಾಡಿದ್ದು. ಕಾಲೇಜ್ ವಿಧ್ಯಾಬ್ಯಾಸ ಆ0ಗ್ಲ ಮಾಧ್ಯಮದಲ್ಲಿ ಕಲಿತರೂ ಮಾತನಾಡುವ ಪ್ರಮೇಯವೇ ಇರಲಿಲ್ಲ. ಬೆ0ಗಳೂರಿಗೆ ಬ0ದಾಗ ಹೊರ ರಾಜ್ಯದ ವಿಧ್ಯಾರ್ಥಿಗಳ ಒಡನಾಟದಿ0ದ ಸ್ವಲ್ಪ ಆ0ಗ್ಲ ಭಾಷೆ ಕಲಿತು ಹೇಗೋ ವಕೀಲ ವೃತ್ತಿಗೆ ಸಾಕಾಗುವಷ್ಟು ಇ0ಗ್ಲೀಷ ಇದೆ.

ಗಮನಿಸಿ, ಕಕ್ಷಿದಾರರು ಜ್ನಾನವ0ತ, ಚಾಣಾಕ್ಶ ವಕೀಲರಿಗೆ ಬೆಲೆ ಕೊಡುವುದು ನಿಜ. ಆದರೆ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯಕ್ಕೆ ಹಾಜರಾದಾಗ ಆ0ಗ್ಲ ಭಾಷೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ವಾದ ಮಾಡುವ ವಕೀಲರನ್ನು ನೋಡಿ ಪ್ರಭಾವಿತರಾಗುವುದ0ತೂ ಖ0ಡಿತ. ಕನ್ನಡದ ಪ್ರಭುತ್ತತೆ ಇ0ದು ಬರೀ ಪಾಟೀ ಸವಾಲಿಗೆ ಮಾತ್ರ ಸಹಾಯಕಾರಿಯಾಗಿದೆ.

ಸತ್ಯದರ್ಶನವೆ0ದರೆ ಕನ್ನಡದಲ್ಲಿ ಕಾನೂನು ವ್ಯಾಸ0ಗ ಮಾಡಿ ಇ0ಗ್ಲೀಷ ಕಲಿಯದ ವಕೀಲರು ಎ0ದೂ ಕೂಡ ಉಚ್ಚನ್ಯಾಯಲಯದಲ್ಲಿಯಾಗಲೀ ಸರ್ವೋಚ್ಚ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯದಲ್ಲಿಯಾಗಲೀ ವೃತ್ತಿ ಮಾಡುವ ಸಾದ್ಯತೆ ಬಹಳ ಕಡಿಮೆ. ಇದರಿ0ದ ಕನ್ನಡ ಕಾನೂನು ವಕೀಲರು ಇಡೀ ಜೀವನ ಎರಡನೆ ಪ0ಕ್ತಿ ವಕೀಲರಾಗಿಯೇ ಇದ್ದುಬಿಡುವ ಭಯ ಇದೆ.

ರಿಯಲ್ ಎಸ್ಟೇಟ ಸ0ಸ್ಥೆಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಕನ್ನಡಕ್ಕೆ ಬೆಲೆ ಇದೆ. ಆದರೆ ಇದು ಬರೀ ಕನ್ನಡದ ದಾಖಲೆಗಳನ್ನು ಪರಿಶೀಲಿಸುವ ಹಾಗೂ ಭಾಷಾ0ತರ ಮಾಡುವ ಮಟ್ಟಕ್ಕೆ ಮಾತ್ರ ಸಿಮೀತವಾಗಿದೆ. ಬಹುರಾಷ್ತ್ರೀಯ ಕಕ್ಷಿದಾರರ ಜೊತೆ ಮಾತುಕತೆಯಾಗುವ ಸಮಯದಲ್ಲಿ ಆ0ಗ್ಲಭಾಷೆ ಪ್ರಭುತ್ತತೆ ಉಳ್ಳ ವಕೀಲರಿಗೆ ಪ್ರಾಮುಖ್ಯತೆ ನೀಡಲಾಗುತ್ತದೆ.

ನೀವು ನ್ಯಾಯಾದೀಶರಾಗಿ ಕನ್ನಡದಲ್ಲಿ ತೀರ್ಪು ಬರೆಯಬಹುದು. ಆದರೆ ಇ0ಗ್ಲೀಷ ಭಾಷೆಯನ್ನು ಎ0ದೂ ಕೂಡ ತೀರ್ಪಿನಲ್ಲಿ ಬಳಸದಿದ್ದರೆ ಉಚ್ಚನ್ಯಾಯಲಯದ ನ್ಯಾಯಮೂರ್ತಿಯಾಗಿ ನೇಮಕವಾಗುವ ಅವಕಾಶದಿ0ದ ವ0ಚಿತರಾಗುವುದಿಲ್ಲವೆ? ಆ0ಗ್ಲ ಭಾಷೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಕರ್ನಾಟಕದ ಹಾಗೂ ಹೊರ ರಾಜ್ಯದ ವಕೀಲರು ವಾದ ಮಾಡುವಾಗ ಆ ಭಾಷೆಯ ಮೇಲೆ ಹಿಡಿತ ಖ0ಡಿತ ಬೇಕಾಗುತ್ತದೆ.

ಆದ್ದರಿ0ದ ನನ್ನ ಮನವಿಯೆ0ದರೆ ಕನ್ನಡದಲ್ಲಿ ಕಾನೂನು ಕಲಿತರೂ ಆ0ಗ್ಲ ಭಾಷೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಕಾನೂನು ಶಭ್ದಗಳನ್ನು ಬಳಸುವ, ಮಾತನಾಡುವ ಹಾಗೂ ವಾದಮಾಡುವ ಪ್ರಯತ್ನ ದಿನ ನಿತ್ಯ ಮಾಡಿ. ವೃತ್ತಿಗೋಸ್ಕರ ಇ0ಗ್ಲೀಷ ಕಲಿಯಲೇ ಬೇಕಾಗುತ್ತದೆ. ಇಲ್ಲವಾದಲ್ಲಿ ಕೀಳರಿಮೆ ಮೂಡುವ ಸಾದ್ಯತೆ ಇದೆ. ಇದನ್ನು ಸ್ವ0ತ ಅನುಭವದಿ0ದ ಹೇಳಿದ್ದೇನೆ.

ನಿಮಗೆ ಶುಭವಾಗಲಿ

B.V.Acharya, Senior Advocate and former Advocate General.

Of late, the High Court of Karnataka is in the news at National level for wrong reasons. First, a Judge of the High Court while hearing an application for bail in a corruption case on 29:6:2022 castigated the Anti Corruption Bureau (AAB) for its inaction to catch people in high position and in filing cases only against public servants at a lower level. Further he angrily commented that ACB has been constituted not to eradicate corruption but to protect corrupt people, ACB itself has become a den of corruption, deliberately Government is posting corrupt and dishonest officers to the ACB, ACB office has become collection centre etc.

Couple of days later when the same case came up for hearing on the 4th July 2022, the learned Judge in open Court remarked that he has received transfer threats for his previous remarks on functioning of ACB, that he will not be cowed down by such threats and that he will fight to protect the independence of the judiciary at the cost of his judgeship.

The Judge further added that someone has spoken to his brother Judge who mentioned to him an instance of another Judge being transferred, this is a threat of transfer aimed at him. He also states that he will not hesitate to name the Judge who gave the information. (However he did not name the Judge for reasons not known). These proceedings are recorded.

Next day Rahul Gandhi stated as follows in Twitter.
“High Court Judge has been threatened for exposing BJPs corrupt government in Karnataka. Institutions after institutions is being bulldozed by BJP…”

To my knowledge, the Judge has not referred to BJP Government in Karnataka. If Rahul Gandhi has misquoted the judge, it is for the latter to take action in the matter. (I am reminded of an instance where Rahul Gandhi attributed an insinuation against Prime Minister as a “chor” and on action by Supreme Court Rahul Gandhi tendered unconditional apology.)

Today, news papers have reported that the Advocates Association Bangalore (AAB) has decided to write a letter to the Chief Justice of India demanding an in house probe into the “threat” to the High Court Judge. This is a welcome step. However this probe shall be a comprehensive one including the conduct of the Judge complaining both on 29:6:2022 and on 4:7:2022 when the case was heard and various comments and observations were made by him in open court.

However I feel the association has taken a hasty decision to say that “Justice Sandesh by his bold judgeship…AAB stands by him in its efforts to correct the system”. The said correction should include the Judge also.

Following are some important aspects which require deep consideration by the Bar/Bench and the general public on the entire episode.

1. Assuming everything stated by the learned judge is correct, was he justified in making lengthy statement in open court on 4 July 2022 complaining about threat of transfer, meeting by brother judge, independence of judiciary etc without furnishing such information to the chief of the High Court or the Chief Justice of India which is the head of the judiciary in the country.?

2. Should not such complaint have been made in a confidential manner so as to enable CJI to take appropriate action such as in-house probe etc as enunciated by the Rules instead of straightaway making this complaint before the public in open court enabling political parties to take undue advantage?.

3. What is object of such utterances by the judge in open court and what he wanted to achieve.?

4. Did he want a certificate from the public about his honesty and integrity which none has questioned?

5. Was the Judge justified in making sweeping comments in open court that ACB office is den of corruption …etc.?

6. Has he not brought down the image of the high court as an institution by such public statement?

7. Was the Judge justified in passing adverse remarks on the law officer representing the ACB.? Can an Advocate be reprimanded for any wrong done by the client? Can law officer be accused of protecting the corrupt?

8. Here the question of dignity and independence of the Bar is involved. AAB without considering these aspects says that it stands by the Judge.

9. While considering bail application of one accused, can the court direct production of records relating to B reports submitted by ACB right from 2016 till today.? Are these documents relevant to decide the bail application?

That he is a person of honesty and integrity result in an insinuation that the other judges are not?
I appeal to the AAB to consider the above aspects before submitting any memorandum to the Chief Justice of India.