Police Assault On Advocate | Karnataka High Court Disposes PIL Noting Probe Handed To CID, Says State Taking Appropriate Steps

The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday disposed of the suo-motu petition taken up acting on the representation made by the Advocates' Association of Bengaluru regarding the alleged incident of an advocate being assaulted by the police in Chikamanagaluru District.

A division bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice Krishna S Dixit said “We see all necessary steps are taken by the state government. The investigation is handed to CID and the agency has initiated an investigation we see no reason to issue any further direction. The purpose of taking cognizance by this court represented by AAB is duly served and achieved its purpose. Accoridnly we see no reason to keep the petition pending in this court. Accordingly, it is disposed of.”

#KarnatakaHighCourt to shortly begin hearing suo-motu petition regarding the alleged assault on Chikmagalur advocate by police.

A division bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice Krishna S Dixit will hear the matter. pic.twitter.com/89dUcKQjXf

— Live Law (@LiveLawIndia) December 13, 2023

It had been alleged that a police team, on night patrol, stopped an advocate Preetham for riding a bike without wearing a helmet. It is alleged that the police took him inside the police station and assaulted him till he fell unconscious.

The court had earlier constituted a High-Level Committee to suggest means and ways for enhancement of amiability between stakeholders of the administration of justice and the law & order agencies of the State, amidst the investigation into an Advocate's assault.

During the hearing, Senior Advocate Vivek Subba Reddy, President of Bar Association submitted that no timeline had been set for taking action in the preliminary investigation stage. Men in uniform, if they stand on the street, what message will be sent to the people of Karnataka,” the senior counsel asked.

Further, he argued that the police officials were delaying the arrest of the accused. Even though CID was appointed, they were using local police to get witnesses and take statements. Local police are tutoring the witness, it seems it has become a lawyer vs police issue," it was argued.

He added “They are virtually tampering with the evidence. Kindly see how they are trying to derail the investigation. Suppose based on these witnesses, it is said that no such incident has taken place, it will be a great injustice.”

Counsel prayed for the investigation to be carried out by a neutral investigation agency since there was a risk of derailing the investigation and asked for a Special Investigation Team to be appointed.

Following this, the court orally observed “What is the stage of investigation? Where an SIT is constituted like the CID, it is not the duty of the court to monitor the investigation. Otherwise someone may say there is a nexus between advocates and judges. You (advocates) can go on the street we cannot go. An advocate community is a thinking community. Because lawyers want somebody to be arrested can we yield to your request? We have taken an oath to uphold the law, we are not here to please the members of the bar.”

In its order, the court noted that the high-level committee by majority, felt that it would not be legally permissible to direct the arrest of the accused and for the IO to adopt an appropriate course of action as mandated by law, leaving it purely to his discretion. The committee by further majority expressed its confidence in the Investigating agency to act in accordance with the law.

It further rejected the submissions calling for the appointment of an independent investigative agency for the issue. 

The court also declined to address the submission about a fixed timeline to complete the investigation and disciplinary course of action against erring officials and held that the investigation had just started, and there was no material presented before it to assume that there would be an undue delay in the investigation.

"If there is no material before the court this court cannot direct the investigating agency to complete the investigation in a fixed timeline, except that it should be completed at the earliest. Similarly, service rules provide particular stages during the inquiry and other procedural aspects referred to in service law. By judicial dicta or dictum, this court cannot give a go-by to service law. We appreciate the response of the respondents, the State and its authority and senior advocates who have responded to the suggestion of this court" it concluded.

Before parting the court told the Advocate General to ensure that things run fairly and independently in the investigation. Justice should not only be done but it should be seen to be done, it opined.

Case Title: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AND State of Karnataka

Case No: WP 26762/2023

Citation No: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 473