Click the Play button to listen to article

The Karnataka High Court has recently accepted the unconditional apology tendered by an advocate, who had allegedly threatened a Sessions Judge and attempted to hamper court proceedings. While doing so, the court imposed a symbolic fine of Rs 1,000 and directed the lawyer to plant 1,000 fruit-bearing saplings as a 'social action'.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 331]

The single judge bench of Justice Hanchate Sanjeevkumar sitting at Dharwad noted in the order as below:

“…Justice has been pictured in as Goddess of Justice with open eyes holding scale in one hand and the Constitution of India on the other hand. The scales connote the weighing and balancing of rights and privileges. The judge and the lawyer should remember, first and foremost, that in weighing and balancing rights and privileges they are building together a monument in the Temple of Justice. At the same time we should follow principles enshrined in the Constitution of India in letter and spirit in our life… This building is never-ending, for the process of justice is never finished…Hence, this case shall remind all of us and make us introspect what we are and what is our contribution to society and to the nation.”

The petitioners-accused had filed a petition under Section 447 BNSS seeking transfer of Sessions Case No.5/2026 pending before the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Koppal.

In April, the High Court had dismissed the transfer petition with costs and had initiated criminal contempt proceedings against the advocate for his conduct during the Session trial.“…Therefore it is observed that the judicial function cannot and should not be permitted to be stoneward by browbeating or bullying methodology either it is by litigants or by counsel…”, the court noted as the reason for its previous order initiating contempt, as a measure to deter other legal professionals from repeating the same conduct.

In the order sheet, the Sessions court has recorded that the lawyer in question threatened the court virtually, obstructed court proceedings and day to day trial.

“…The Advocates must remember that they are equal partners with the Judges in the administration of justice. If the lawyers do not perform their functions properly, it would be destructive of democracy and the rule of law. “Law is no trade, briefs no merchandise.” The Advocate, being an officer of the Court has a duty to ensure smooth functioning of the Court..”, the division bench added further, after perusing the order sheet of the sessions judge.

The High Court also observed the following as apt corrective measures for the conduct of the lawyer:

“….now I of the opinion not to take harsh steps to Sri. S. Rangaswamy, Advocate, hoping that he would change his behavior in future in his professional life. Therefore, the order dated 16.04.2026 in Criminal Petition No.100680/2026, so far as taking action against Sri. S. Rangaswamy, Advocate, is hereby recalled. Hence, the actions to be taken, namely, initiating proceedings for criminal contempt of Court, directing the Karnataka State Bar Council to take action against the said Sri. S. Rangaswamy, Advocate, and initiation of criminal proceedings as per provisions of the Indian Penal Code/Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, as the case may be are hereby recalled.

Initially, in April, the court had ordered to place the matter before Chief Justice and Advocate General for initiation of contempt proceedings. On the same day, the court had also directed the Karnataka State Bar Council to initiate action, along with independent criminal proceedings against the erring lawyer. Subsequently, the advocate had requested the court to expunge the order and sought its leniency through Senior Advocate P.P Hegde, agreeing to apologise before the High Court.

“….The Court was initially reluctant to pass such an order[initiating contempt] against the said Advocate, but upon perusal of the orders of the learned Sessions Judge... the Court, after deep thought, was compelled to pass such order to protect the dignity and decorum of the District Judiciary….. The Presiding Officers in the District Judiciary, though they are having Judicial powers, are in a vulnerable position and cannot defend themselves; therefore, the Presiding Officers are voiceless outside the Court. The Presiding Officers in the District Judiciary can only make observations in the order without expressing any opinion in the open Court. Therefore, in this way, the Presiding Officers in the District Judiciary are placed in a sensitive situation and in a vulnerable position..”, the court reasoned by referring to the vulnerable positions of the members of District Judiciary.

While accepting the apology of the advocate, the Court emphasized the multi-dimensional character of the legal profession:

“…An Advocate owes a duty to the Court, to his client and to society. A case in the hands of an Advocate is not only his personal brief, but a dispute is coming to the Court and inviting the attention of the Court to resolve it and ultimately, society will get the benefit of it…”

Hence, the lawyer will now be liable to pay Rs 1000/- to DLSA Bellary, along with planting 1000 fruit-bearing saplings on government land or school/college premises and maintain them. The court has asked for filing the compliance affidavit by October 31 with the next date of hearing set on November 2.

Case Title: Ravi Basavaraj v. State of Karnataka & Ors

Case No: Criminal Petition No.100680/2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 331

Click Here To Read/Download Order



Tags: