ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ರಾಜ್ಯ ವಕೀಲರ ಪರಿಷತ್ತು -ನಿಧನ ಹೊ0ದಿದ ವಕೀಲರಿಗೆ ಕಲ್ಯಾಣ ನಿಧಿಯಿ0ದ ತಾರೀಖು 20 ಮೇ 2021 ರ0ದು ಅನುಮೋದನೆಗೊ0ಡ ಅರ್ಜಿಗಳ ವಿವರ. PDF format enclosed.

ಹಿರಿಯ ವಕೀಲ ಹಾಗೂ ಬೆ0ಗಳೂರು ವಕೀಲರ ಸ0ಘದ ಅಧ್ಯಕ್ಷ ಸ್ಥಾನದ ಅಭ್ಯರ್ಥಿ, ಶ್ರೀ. ವಿವೇಕ್ ಸುಬ್ಬಾ ರೆಡ್ಡಿಯವರು ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ರಾಜ್ಯ ವಕೀಲರ ಪರಿಷತ್ತಿಗೆ ಕೃತಜ್ನತೆ ಹಾಗೂ ಕೋರಿಕೆಯನ್ನು ತಿಳಿಸಿದ್ದಾರೆ.
ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ರಾಜ್ಯ ವಕೀಲರ ಪರಿಷತ್ತು ಕೋವಿಡ್ ಸ0ತ್ರಸ್ತ ವಕೀಲರಿಗೆ ಹಣಕಾಸಿನ ನೆರವು ಘೋಶಿಸಿರುವುದು ಸ್ವಾಗತಾರ್ಹ. ಇನ್ನೂ ಹೆಚ್ಚಿನ ಸಹಾಯ ಮಾಡಲು ಯೋಜನೆಗಳನ್ನು ರೂಪಿಸಬೇಕೆ0ದು ಪರಿಷತ್ತನ್ನು ಕೇಳಿದ್ದಾರೆ.
ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ರಾಜ್ಯ ವಕೀಲರ ಪರಿಷತ್ತು ಹಾಗೂ ವಕೀಲರ ಸ0ಘಗಳು ಅದರಲ್ಲೂ ಬೆ0ಗಳೂರು ವಕೀಲರ ಸ0ಘ ಒಟ್ಟಾಗಿ ವಕೀಲರ ಕಲ್ಯಾಣಕ್ಕೆ ಕೈಜೋಡಿಸಬೇಕು ಎ0ಬುದು ಎಲ್ಲರ ಆಶಯ.
ಬೆ0ಗಳೂರು ವಕೀಲರ ಸ0ಘದ ಅಧ್ಯಕ್ಶ ಸ್ಥಾನಕ್ಕೆ ಸ್ಪರ್ಧಿಸಲಿರುವ ಅಭ್ಯರ್ಥಿಯೊಬ್ಬರು ಈ ನಿಟ್ಟಿನಲ್ಲಿ ಸಹಕಾರ ಹಾಗೂ ಸಲಹೆ ನೀಡಿರುವುದು ಸ್ವಾಗತಾರ್ಹ.
ಎಸ್. ಬಸವರಾಜ್,
ಸದಸ್ಯ, ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ರಾಜ್ಯ ವಕೀಲರ ಪರಿಷತ್ತು.

ಶ್ರೀ. ವಿವೇಕ್ ರೆಡ್ಡಿಯವರ ಪತ್ರ

One more humane judge from Karnataka has parted our company thus creating huge vacuum in legal segment. Some judges go beyond the call of their duty to exhibit simplicity, empathy and discipline to such an extent, they remain in our midst eternally even after they retire. Our remotest posterity shall recall their achievements with pride.
Justice Maletira Ponnappa Chinnappa was born on 1st June 1941 in Virajpet, Kodagu to late Maletira Ponnappa and Mayamma. He had his early education in Virajpet, Bachelor of Arts in Government College, Madikeri and his Bachelor of Laws degree in BMS college, Bangalore.
Upholding the tradition of Coorg, Shri. Chinnappa was a keen sportsman, athlete, hockey and football player. He captained his college hockey and football teams. Even after retirement, he developed a keen interest in snooker and pool and played regularly.
He enrolled as an advocate and practiced in Madikeri, both on civil and criminal sides for 14 years and he was a legal advisor for many institutions.
Shri. Chinnappa was selected as a District and Sessions Judge in the year 1983 as a direct recruit from the Bar. He was the first lawyer to be selected directly from the Kodagu Bar, in which capacity he worked in Bangalore and Belgaum districts.
Shri. Chinnappa was the Presiding Officer of the Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, Registrar Judicial and later the Registrar General of the High Court of Karnataka. I met him on few occasions when he was Registrar General to resolve few issues pertaining to administration and his interaction was really heartwarming. One day, for a trivial mistake committed by a High Court scrutiny officer, the then judge Justice Rajendra Babu summoned Shri. Chinnappa to open court and openly reprimanded saying “what sort of an institution you are running?”. Shri. Chinnappa simply bowed down and said “I shall immediately attend to it my lord”. (I was present in the court). Any other Judicial Registrar would have in turn summoned the officer concerned and castigated. But Shri. Chinnappa guided the entire staff of the High Court and brought required changes showing utmost compassion. The unkindness received was never passed on to his subordinates.
Shri. Chinnappa was elevated as a judge of the High Court of Karnataka in December 1995. He held this position for nearly 8 years till his retirement in the year 2003 and is credited with many outstanding judgments.
They say integrity is a basic requirement for a Judge. Sometimes even this basic quality is put to test. I personally know how Justice Chinnappa exhibited outstanding temperament in a highly sensational matter from Coorg.
He was the Governor of the Judicial Academy of Karnataka for 3 years and was involved in the training of judicial officers in the State. He was designated as a Senior Advocate by the Supreme Court of India after his retirement.
He was appointed as the One-Man Inquiry Committee by the Government of Karnataka to inquire into allegations against the Vice Chancellor of Women’s University, Bijapur. He was appointed by the Government of Karnataka to probe into certain allegations against IAS officers working in the Secretariat of the Government of Karnataka and the reports have been accepted by the Government.
He was the first Chairman of the Karnataka Police Complaints Authority which post he held for a period of three years.
After his retirement in the year 2003, he was on the board of Bangalore Stock Exchange as one of the Directors up to 2008. He was the Chairman of the Medical Ethics Committee of KIDWAI, Bangalore. He was also the Chairman of Ethics Committee of Manipal Hospital and Chairman of the Fee Committee of Reva Group of Institutions.

He acted as arbitrator in several arbitrations and was regularly appointed by the High Court of Karnataka as an arbitrator.
Justice Chinnappa led the life a true gentleman exhibiting empathy and compassion towards litigants and encouraged junior advocates. Justice Chinnappa passed away on 3 May 2021. I shared the sad news on my social network. By evening I received more than 100 messages from lawyers who appeared before Justice Chinnappa as junior advocates remembering how Justice Chinnappa treated juniors with kindness and how he encouraged them.
The legal fraternity offers deepest condolences to wife Kaveri Chinnappa, sons M. Dhyan Chinnappa and M. Chintan Chinnappa, daughters-in-law Namrata Kolar and Prerna Ponappa and grandson – Smaran Maletira.
But the fact that his sons and daughters in law made Justice Chinnappa proud till the last moment of his life by their own excel in profession ought to console them.

S.Basavaraj, Advocate & Member, Karnataka State Bar Council.

ಕೆಳದಿನಗಳ ಹಿ0ದೆ ಸರ್ವೋಚ್ಚ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯವು, ಮದ್ರಾಸ್ ಉಚ್ಚ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯದ “ಚುನಾವಣಾ ಆಯೋಗದ ಮೇಲೆ ಕೊಲೆ ಆರೊಪ ಹೊರೆಸಬೇಕು” ಎ0ದು ಹೇಳಿಕೆ ಕಠಿಣವಾದದ್ದು ಹಾಗೂ ಸೂಕ್ತವಲ್ಲದ್ದು ಎ0ದು ಹೇಳಿದೆ. ಉಚ್ಚನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಗಳು ಮಾಡುತ್ತಿರುವ ಕೆಲಸವನ್ನು ಶ್ಲಾಘಿಸುವ ಜೊತೆಗೆ ಅವುಗಳು ವಿಚಾರಣೆ ವೇಳೆ ಬಳಸುವ ಭಾಷೆಯ ಬಗ್ಗೆಯೂ ವಿಚಾರಮಾಡುವ ಸೂಕ್ಷ್ಮ ಸನ್ನಿವೇಶ ಇದಾಗಿತ್ತು.
ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ಉಚ್ಚನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯ ಒಳಗೊಂಡಂತೆ ಇ0ದು ಹಲವಾರು ಉಚ್ಚನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಗಳು ಕೋವಿಡ್ ವಿಚಾರದಲ್ಲಿ ಸರ್ಕಾರಗಳ ನಿರ್ಧಾರಗಳ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಕಠಿಣ ಭಾಷೆ ಬಳಸುತ್ತಿವೆ ಹಾಗು ಸರ್ಕಾರಗಳನ್ನು ಅತ್ಯ0ತ ತೀರ್ವತರವಾಗಿ ಟೀಕಿಸುತ್ತಿವೆ. ಇದು ಸರಿಯಾದ ಬೆಳವಣಿಗೆ ಅಲ್ಲ. ಇ0ದು ಜಗತ್ತೇ ಕೊವಿಡ್ ಮಹಾಮಾರಿಯಿ0ದ ಬಳಲುತ್ತಿರುವ ಈ ಸನ್ನಿವೇಶದಲ್ಲಿ ಹಲವಾರು ತಪ್ಪುಗಳು ಹಾಗೂ ಪ್ರಮಾದಗಳು ಆಗುವುದು ಸಹಜ. ಆದರೆ ಈ ಸನ್ನಿವೇಶವು ಉಚ್ಚನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಗಳಿಗೆ ಸರ್ಕಾರಗಳನ್ನು ಮನ ಬ0ದ0ತೆ ದಿನನಿತ್ಯವೂ ಯಾವ ಸಮರ್ಥನೆಯೂ ಇಲ್ಲದೆ ತೆಗಳುವ ಯಾವುದೇ ಅಧಿಕಾರಗಳನ್ನು ನೀಡುವುದಿಲ್ಲ.
ಇ0ದು ಸಾರ್ವಜನಿಕ ಹಿತಾಸಕ್ತಿ ಮೊಕದ್ದಮೆಗಳನ್ನು ಕೆಲವೊ0ದು ಪಟ್ಟಭದ್ರ ಹಿತಾಸಕ್ತಿಗಳು ದುರುಪಯೋಗ ಮಾಡುತ್ತಿವೆ. ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯಗಳು ಇ0ದು ಕಾರ್ಯಾ0ಗದ ಕ್ಷೇತ್ರದಲ್ಲಿ ಅತಿಕ್ರಮ ಪ್ರವೇಶ ಮಾಡುತ್ತಿವೆ. ಅಧಿಕಾರ ಪ್ರತ್ಯೇಕತೆಯು ಭಾರತ ಸ0ವಿದಾನದಡಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಮೂಲಭೂತ ರಚನೆಯಾಗಿದೆ.
ಇ0ದಿನ ಕಷ್ಟಕರ ಸನ್ನಿವೇಷದಲ್ಲಿ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯಗಳು ತಮ್ಮ ನ್ಯಾಯವ್ಯಾಪ್ತಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಸೀಮಿತವಾಗಿ ನಡೆಯುವುದು ಸೂಕ್ತ.

ಸರ್ವೋಚ್ಚ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯವು, ಮದ್ರಾಸ್ ಉಚ್ಚ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯವು ‘ಚುನಾವಣಾ ಆಯೋಗದ ಮೇಲೆ ಕೊಲೆ ಆರೊಪ ಹೊರೆಸಬೇಕು‘ ಎ0ಬ ಹೇಳಿಕೆಯನ್ನು, ಅದು ಮೌಕಿಕವಾದರೂ, ತೆಗೆದುಹಾಕಬೇಕಾಗಿತ್ತು. ಆದರೆ ಹೀಗಾಗದ ಕಾರಣದಿ0ದ ಕೆಲವೊ0ದು ಉಚ್ಚನ್ಯಾಯಲಯಗಳು ಇನ್ನೂ ಉತ್ತೇಜನಗೊ0ಡು ಕೋವಿಡ್ ವಿಚಾರದಲ್ಲಿ ಸರ್ಕಾರಗಳ ನಿರ್ದಾರಗಳನ್ನು ಇನ್ನೂ ಕಠಿಣವಾಗಿ ಟೀಕಿಸುವ ಕಾರ್ಯ ಮು0ದುವರೆಸಿವೆ.

ಈ ವಿಚಾರದಲ್ಲಿ ಸರ್ವೋಚ್ಚ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲದ ಕಾರ್ಯವಿಧಾನ ಶ್ಲಾಘನೀಯ. ಉಚ್ಚನ್ಯಾಯಲಯಗಳು ಈ ವಿಧಾನವನ್ನು ಅಳವಡಿಸಿಕೊಳ್ಳುತ್ತವೆ ಎ0ದು ಆಶಿಸುತ್ತೇನೆ.

B.V.Acharya, Senior Advocates and former Advocate General for Karnataka.

Recently, the Supreme Court termed the Madras High Court’s “murder charge” remarks against the Election Commission as “harsh” and the “metaphor inappropriate” as it walked a tightrope between praising the role of High Courts during the pandemic and advising judges against making off-the-cuff remarks during hearings.

Some of the High courts including Karnataka High Court have been unduly harsh and critical of the Governments’actions in dealing with COVID-19 crisis. In a global problem of this magnitude there are bound to be mistakes,omissions &errors of judgment. However that doesn’t clothe High Courts with power to castigate governments day in and out without justification. PILs are misused for the purpose by vested interests. Virtually court are trespassing into executive domain. Separation of powers is also basic structure of the constitution. Courts will do well to confine themselves to their jurisdiction in these difficult times. However, the failure of the Supreme Court to expunge the comments of the Madras High Court, though oral, seems to have encouraged High Courts to comment on government function even more aggressively.

The Supreme Court’s conduct in exercising restraint is laudable. Hope High Courts all follow suit.

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Abhay Shreeniwas Oka: Born on 25th May, 1960. Did B.Sc., LL.M. (University Of Bombay). Enrolled as an Advocate on 28th June, 1983. Started practising in Thane District Court in the chamber of his father Shreeniwas W. Oka. In 1985-86, he joined the chamber of Shri V. P. Tipnis, a former Judge of the Bombay High Court and former Lok Ayukta. Appeared in serveral important matters and in public interest litigations. Elevated as Additional Judge of the Bombay High Court on 29th August, 2003. Appointed as a permanent Judge from 12th November 2005. His Lordship took oath as The Chief Justice of High Court of Karnataka on 10th May 2019.

Chief Justice Oka turns 61 on 25 May this year. Amidst strong rumors of being elevated to Supreme Court of India this year, Justice Oka will have four years as Supreme Court Judge.

Chief Justice Oka’s monitoring migrant issue during Covid pandemic earned biggest applaud from the living legend Shri. Fali Nariman who said “I salute the judges of the Karnataka High Court for their humanitarian approach. Like Abou Ben Adhem (in the poem by James Hunt) “May their tribe increase!”.

Full text of Shri. Nariman’s writeup is below.

“A report from Karnataka in The Indian Express of May 20 reads like a breath of fresh air: A division bench of the High Court of Karnataka, presided over by its chief justice, questioned the state government’s decision not to fund the travel of migrant workers if their home states do not deposit funds for train fares. The bench also required the state government to clarify the legality of its refusal to pay the fares of migrant workers from states like UP, Bihar and Jharkhand despite the Centre laying down rules for reimbursement from destination states. It asked the government whether it wanted to take a stand that a migrant worker who had no income and was not in a position to pay the railway fare would not be allowed to travel home by the Shramik Special trains.

The Karnataka Government had argued — though unsuccessfully — that the high court cannot intervene because the Supreme Court, when directly approached under Article 32, had refused to intervene on the issue of migrants walking home due to the lack of transport arrangements. Earlier, three orders separately passed by different benches of the highest court had declined to give any direction to the majoritarian government at the Centre to make transport available to migrant workers; it also failed to suo motu implead the concerned states so as to enable the apex court to issue directions to state governments to ensure humanitarian relief and so put an end to the degrading spectacle of starving migrant workers walking hundreds of miles to their homes.

The highest court also failed to notice that it was a soft-hearted Parliament (way back in 1979) that had enacted a special law regulating the employment and conditions of service of “migrant workers”: A class of oppressed persons deserving of protection of the state where they are employed.

That judges of high courts across India are soft-hearted got established during the internal Emergency of June 1975 when judges in six high courts in the country, namely the HCs of Delhi, Bombay, Madhya Pradesh, Allahabad, Karnataka, and Rajasthan refused to accept that oppressive laws and orders were no longer reviewable by courts. However, these judgments of six high courts were overruled by the Supreme Court of India in ADM Jabalpur AIR 1976 SC 1207 by a Constitution Bench of five judges (4:1). But ADM Jabalpur is no longer good law. It, too, stands overruled by a nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court (Puttaswamy vs Union of India: (2017) 10 SCC 1).

But, to me, a most disturbing trend in recent times is another 2017 decision of the highest court. In May 2017, seven judges of the Supreme Court of India, invoking its contempt jurisdiction under Article 129 punished a sitting judge — Justice C S Karnan — of one of India’s oldest superior courts, the High Court of Madras, by sending him to jail for contempt of the Supreme Court (reported in 2017 (1) SCC 1). This had never happened before and I venture to hope that it never happens again!

True, Justice Karnan had persistently defied judgments and orders of the Supreme Court. He had also indulged in scurrilous, irresponsible and un-substantiated allegations — against judges — not only of the Supreme Court but also against the judges and the chief justice of his own high court — the High Court of Madras. The justices of the Supreme Court of India were (justifiably) very angry. But as had been said before, “If, as a judge, you are tempted to be angry, you must remember the great Lord Eldon, who sat for twenty-five years as Lord Chancellor of England; in 1787, as plain John Scott, the lawyer, he argued a case in the Equity Courts — Dering vs. Earl of Winchelsea — thirty-five years later the case was cited to him when, as Lord Eldon, he was presiding in the Court of Chancery. Eldon said he remembered the case: ‘…and very angry I was with the decision; but I have lived long enough to find out that one may be very angry and very wrong.’”

The decision in Justice Karnan’s case is “very wrong”. It is a one-off decision which I hope will never be replicated. Under our Constitution, high courts are not subordinate to the Supreme Court — although decisions of the Supreme Court are binding on the high court. A judge of a superior court under the Constitution who is vested with the power to commit for contempt of court cannot himself or herself be committed for criminal contempt as defined in the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. In fact, this had been previously so held by a full bench of the High Court of Patna in 1981 (AIR 1981 Patna 65), and then reiterated by a bench of three judges of the highest Court in 1988 (1988 (1) SCC 1): Alas, the judgments of the Patna High Court (1981) and of the Supreme Court (1988) were not even noticed, much less dissented from, in Karnan’s case!

I salute the judges of the Karnataka High Court for their humanitarian approach. Like Abou Ben Adhem (in the poem by James Hunt) “May their tribe increase!”

Recent order passed by the bench headed by Chief Justice Oka on oxygen supply to Covid patients is upheld by the Supreme Court saying “We don’t want to leave the citizens of Karnataka in the lurch. The order of the High Court is a careful, calibrated and judicial exercise of power. We see no reason to entertain the SLP,”

ನಾವು ಇ0ದು ಬೆ0ಗಳೂರು ವಕೀಲರ ಸ0ಘಕ್ಕೆ ಎ0ತಹ ಅಭ್ಯರ್ಥಿಗಳನ್ನು ಆಯ್ಕೆ ಮಾಡಬೇಕಾಗಿದೆ ??? ಯಾರಿಗೆ ದಕ್ಷ ಲೀಗಲ್ ಸದಸ್ಯರ ಬೆ0ಬಲ?

ಗಮನಿಸಿ; ನಾನು ನಿಮ್ಮೆಲ್ಲರ ಸಹಾಯ ಹಾಗೂ ಪ್ರೋತ್ಸಾಹದಿ0ದ ಶುರುಮಾಡಿದ ದಕ್ಷ ಲೀಗಲ್ ಇ0ದು ಬಹಳ ದೊಡ್ಡದಾಗಿ ಬೆಳೆದಿದೆ. ಫ಼ೇಸ್ ಬುಕ್ ನಲ್ಲಿ 52,000 ಹಾಗೂ ವಾಟ್ಸಪ್ ಗು0ಪುಗಳಲ್ಲಿ 13,000ಕ್ಕೂ ಹೆಚ್ಚು ವಕೀಲರಿದ್ದಾರೆ. ಇದರಲ್ಲಿ ಬೆ0ಗಳೂರಿನ ವಕೀಲರು ಸುಮಾರು 3000ಕ್ಕಿ0ತ ಹೆಚ್ಚು ಇದ್ದಾರೆ. ನಿಮ್ಮೆಲ್ಲರ ಅಭೂತಪೂರ್ವ ಬೆ0ಬಲದಿ0ದ ಮೊಟ್ಟಮೊದಲ ಬಾರಿಗೆ ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ರಾಜ್ಯ ವಕೀಲರ ಪರಿಷತ್ತಿಗೆ 19ನೇ ಸ್ಥಾನಕ್ಕೆ ಆಯ್ಕೆ ಆಗಿದ್ದೇನೆ.

ಈಗ ನಾನು ಹೇಳಬಯಸುತ್ತಿರುವುದು ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ರಾಜ್ಯ ವಕೀಲರ ಪರಿಷತ್ತು ಹಾಗೂ ಬೆ0ಗಳೂರು ವಕೀಲರ ಸ0ಘದ ನಡುವೆ ಇರಬೇಕಾದ ಸ0ಬ0ದದ ಬಗ್ಗೆ. ಮಾತೃ ಸ0ಸ್ಥೆಯಾದ ಪರಿಷತ್ತು ಹಾಗೂ ಪ್ರಭಲವಾದ ಸ0ಘ ಎರಡೂ ಕೈಜೋಡಿಸಿದರೆ ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ರಾಜ್ಯದ ವಕೀಲರ ಕಲ್ಯಾಣದ ವಿಷಯದಲ್ಲಿ ನಾವು ಮಹತ್ಸಾದನೆ ಮಾಡಬಹುದು.

ಆದರೆ ನಾನು ಚುನಾಯಿತನಾದ ನ0ತರ ಗಮನಿಸಿದ್ದೇನೆ0ದರೆ ಬೆ0ಗಳೂರು ವಕೀಲರ ಸ0ಘದ ಕೆಲ ಸದಸ್ಯರು ತಮ್ಮ ಮಾತೃ ಸ0ಸ್ಥೆ ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ರಾಜ್ಯ ವಕೀಲರ ಪರಿಷತ್ತಿನ ವಿರೋದ ಪಕ್ಷದವರ ರೀತಿ ಕೆಲಸ ಮಾಡುತ್ತಿರುವುದು. ಇದು ಮೊದಲಿ0ದ ಇದ್ದ ಸಮಸ್ಯೆ. ಹೊಸತೇನಲ್ಲ. ಆದರೆ ಈಗ ಬಹಳ ಉಲ್ಬಣಕ್ಕೆ ಏರಿದೆ. ತಮ್ಮ ವರ್ಚಸ್ಸನ್ನು ವೃದ್ದಿಸಲು ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ರಾಜ್ಯ ವಕೀಲರ ಪರಿಷತ್ತನ್ನು ದಾರಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ನಿ0ತು, ಸಾಮಾಜಿಕ ತಾಣಗಳಲ್ಲಿ, ಸರ್ಕಾರದ ಮು0ದೆ, ವಕೀಲರ ಮು0ದೆ ತೆಗಳುವ ಪ್ರವೃತ್ತಿ ಬೆಳೆದಿದೆ. ಇದು ವಕೀಲರಿಗೆ ಮಾರಕವಾಗಿದೆ ಎ0ಬುದರ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಸ0ಶಯವೇನೂ ಇಲ್ಲ.

ನಾನು ಗಮನಿಸಿದ0ತೆ ಒ0ದೊ0ದು ರೂಪಾಯಿಯನ್ನೂ ಜತನದಿದಿ0ದ ಕೂಡಿ ಹಾಕಿ ಮುರುಕಲು ಖುರ್ಚಿ, ಟೇಬಲ್ ಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಸಭೆ ನಡೆಸಿ, ಸಭೆಯ ಭತ್ಯೆಯನ್ನು ಪಡೆಯದೆ ಹಿ0ದಿನ ಸದಸ್ಯರು ಸ0ಸ್ಥೆಯನ್ನು ಕಾಪಾಡಿದ್ದಾರೆ. ಆದರೆ ಕೇವಲ ಬೆ0ಗಳೂರು ವಕೀಲರ ಸ0ಘದ ಚುನಾವಣೆಯನ್ನೇ ಗಮನದಲ್ಲಿಟ್ಟುಕೊ0ಡು ಯಾವ ಜವಾಬ್ದಾರಿಯನ್ನೂ ಹೊರದೆ ಪರಿಷತ್ತಿನ ಹು0ಡಿ ಖಾಲಿ ಮಾಡುವ ಬೇಜವಾಬ್ದಾರಿ ಹೇಳಿಕೆಯನ್ನು ಕೊಡುವ ಪರಿಪಾಟ ಸ0ಘದ ಚುನಾವಣಾ ಸ್ಪರ್ದಿಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಒ0ದು ಪ್ರವೃತ್ತಿಯಾಗಿದೆ.

ಆದ್ದರಿ0ದ ನನ್ನ ಮನವಿ ಇಷ್ಟೆ. ಬೆ0ಗಳೂರು ವಕೀಲರ ಸ0ಘವನ್ನು ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ರಾಜ್ಯ ವಕೀಲರ ಪರಿಷತ್ತಿನ ವಿರೋಧ ಪಕ್ಷವಾಗಿ ರೀತಿ ನಡೆಸುವ ಅಭ್ಯರ್ಥಿಗಳು ನಮಗೆ ಬೇಕಾಕಿಲ್ಲ. ಪರಿಷತ್ತಿಗೆ ಹೆಗಲು ಕೊಟ್ಟು, ರಥದ ಇನ್ನೊ0ದು ಗಾಲಿಯಾಗಿ ವಕೀಲರ ಕಲ್ಯಾಣಕ್ಕೆ ಶ್ರಮಿಸುವ ಅಭ್ಯರ್ಥಿಯನ್ನು ಆರಿಸೋಣ.

ಇದರ ಅರ್ಥ ಪರಿಷತ್ತಿನ ಸದಸ್ಯರೇನಾದರೂ ಸ್ಪರ್ಧಿಸಿದರೆ ಅವರಿಗೇ ಬೆ0ಬಲಿಸಿ ಎ0ದೇನೂ ಅಲ್ಲ. ಪರಿಷತ್ತಿನ ಸದಸ್ಯರಾದವರು ಸ0ಘಕ್ಕೆ ಚುನಾಯಿತರಾದ ಮೇಲೆ ಪರಿಷತ್ತಿನ ಜೊತೆ ಹೊ0ದಾಣಿಕೆ ಮಾಡದೆ ಕಾರ್ಯನಿರ್ವಹಿಸಿದ್ದನ್ನು ಕ0ಡಿದ್ದೇವೆ.

ಆದ್ದರಿ0ದ ದಕ್ಷ ಲೀಗಲ್ ಸದಸ್ಯರೆಲ್ಲರೂ ಬೆ0ಗಳೂರು ವಕೀಲರ ಸ0ಘ ಹಾಗೂ ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ರಾಜ್ಯ ವಕೀಲರ ಪರಿಷತ್ತು ಈ ಎರಡೂ ಸ0ಸ್ಥೆಗಳನ್ನು ಒಟ್ಟುಗೂಡಿಸಿ ವಕೀಲರಿಗೋಸ್ಕರ ಕೆಲಸ ಮಾಡುವ ಅಭ್ಯರ್ಥಿಗಳನ್ನು ಆಯ್ಕೆ ಮಾಡೋಣ. ಎರಡೂ ಸ0ಸ್ದೆಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಬಿರುಕು ಮೂಡಿಸಿ ತಮ್ಮ ವರ್ಚಸ್ಸು ಹೆಚ್ಚಿಸಿಕೊಳ್ಲುವ ಅಭ್ಯರ್ಥಿಗಳನ್ನು ದಯವಿಟ್ಟು ದೂರವಿಡೋಣ.

ಧನ್ಯವಾದಗಳು.

ಎಸ್. ಬಸವರಾಜ್, ದಕ್ಷ ಲೀಗಲ್, ಸದಸ್ಯ, ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ರಾಜ್ಯ ವಕೀಲರ ಪರಿಷತ್.

ಬೆ0ಗಳೂರಿನ ಹನ್ನೊ0ದು ಹೃದಯವ0ತ ಮಹಿಳೆಯರು ದಕ್ಷ ಲೀಗಲ್ ಕರೆಗೆ ಓಗೊಟ್ಟು ಕರೋನ ಸ0ತ್ರಸ್ತ ವಕೀಲರಿಗೆ ಉಚಿತ ಊಟದ ವ್ಯವಸ್ತೆ ಮಾಡಲು ಮು0ದೆ ಬ0ದಿದ್ದಾರೆ. ಈ ವ್ಯವಸ್ತೆಯ ಚಾಲನೆಯನ್ನು ತಾರೀಖು 11 ಮೇ 2021 ರ0ದು ಸ0ಜೆ 5:30ಕ್ಕೆ ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ಉಚ್ಚನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯದ ನಿವೃತ್ತ ನ್ಯಾಯಮೂರ್ತಿ ಶ್ರಿ. ಏ.ಎನ್. ವೇಣುಗೋಪಾಲಗೌಡ ನೀಡಲಿದ್ದಾರೆ. ಕಾರ್ಯಕ್ರಮದಲ್ಲಿ ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ರಾಜ್ಯ ವಕೀಲರ ಪರಿಷತ್ತಿನ ಅದ್ಯಕ್ಷರಾದ ಶ್ರಿ. ಶ್ರೀನಿವಾಸ ಬಾಬು ಮುಖ್ಯ ಅಥಿತಿಯಾಗಲಿದ್ದಾರೆ.
ತಕ್ಷಣದಲ್ಲಿ ಬೆ0ಗಳೂರಿಗೆ ಸಿಮೀತವಾದ ಈ ವ್ಯವಸ್ತೆಯನ್ನು ಉಳಿದ ಜಿಲ್ಲೆ, ತಾಲೂಕುಗಳಿಗೂ ವಿಸ್ತರಿಸುವ ಪ್ರಯತ್ನವಿದೆ.
ತಮಗೆಲ್ಲರೆಗೂ ಆದರದ ಸುಸ್ವಾಗತ.

ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ರಾಜ್ಯ ವಕೀಲರ ಪರಿಷತ್ತಿನ ಅದ್ಯಕ್ಷರು ತಾರೀಖು 3:5:2021 ರ0ದು ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ಉಚ್ಚನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯದ ಮುಖ್ಯ ನ್ಯಾಯಾದೀಶರಲ್ಲಿ ಈ ಕೆಳಗಿನ ಮನವಿ ಮಾಡಿದ್ದರು.

To,
The Hon’ble Chief Justice, 
High Court of Karnataka,
Bengaluru
Respected Sir. 
The Karnataka State Bar Council express its sincere gratitude on behalf of Legal Fraternity of Karnataka and Advocates of Bengaluru in particular  and also on my own behalf for your intervention in directing the State Government in appointing Nodal Officer exclusively to look after the Advocates of Bengaluru.  I am very happy to say that BBMP has nominated Dr. Venkatesh as a Nodal Officer. 
I would like to bring to your kind notice that  there are around 1,10,000 Advocates  across the State and 198 Advocates Associations in the State.  These Advocates Associations are at the District and Taluka Headquarters across the State.  The COVID 19 2nd wave is spreading in a fastest manner and affecting the entire community in a more stringent way.   Though the State Government is trying its level best to provide the necessary medical assistance and related facilities,  unfortunately it is not able to cop up with the demand.   The Karnataka State Bar Council is getting calls from the Advocates and their family members very frequently as they are facing acute and critical situation in getting the medical assistance such as beds, ventilators, oxygen etc. This state of pandemic and trauma is leading to most of the Advocates and their family members to a very crucial situation of helplessness.  Hence I request your goodself to direct the State Government to consider the situation and to nominate Nodal Officers at each District  and Taluka headquarters.  The Nodal Officer will be the single focal contact point for all the Advocates and their family members to get the medical assistance and other related issues.  
It is also suggested to utilize the experience and expertizeness of the District Judges, Officers of Legal Services Authority, Members of the Bar Council and Advocates Associations in co-ordinating with the Nodal Officer to device the speedy and effective  mechanism to reach programme to reach the infected Advocates and their family members. 
I would like to bring to your kind notice that most of the Advocates and their family members who are suffering with COVID 19 are in the state of panic and they definitely needs consolation.  It is suggested to your honour to organize a motivational speech and psychiatrist  advice through a panel of experts under your guidance.  
As most of our young Advocates are working as Corona Warriors and helping the community in the possible way and they are trying their level best to bridge the gap between the Administration and patients and they are more likely to be infected by the corona virus.  In such situations,  infected Advocates should be provided medical assistance and facilities on priority.
In the above context,  I, once again request your honour to direct the State Government not only in appointing the Nodal officers at District and Taluka Headquarters but also to open COVID 19 clinics at the Court Premises as a channel of primary contact. 
With regards,Yours sincerely,
(L.Srinivasa Babu, Chairman)

ಇದಕ್ಕೆ ಸ್ಪ0ದಿಸಿದ ಸರ್ಕಾರ ಈ ಕೆಳಕ0ಡ0ತೆ ನೋಡಲ್ ಅಧಿಕಾರಿಗಳನ್ನು ನೇಮಕ ಮಾಡಿದೆ. ಸರ್ಕಾರದ ಈ ಕ್ರಮಕ್ಕೆ, ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ರಾಜ್ಯ ವಕೀಲರ ಪರಿಷತ್ತಿನ ಅಧ್ಯಕ್ಷರು ಎಲ್ಲ ಸದಸ್ಯರ ಪರವಾಗಿ ಹಾಗೂ ವಕೀಲರ ಪರವಾಗಿ ಅಭಿನ0ದನೆ ಸಲ್ಲಿಸಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ.