The legal fraternity in Karnataka has expressed significant dissent over the proposed transfer of four judges from the Karnataka High Court, prompting the Bar Association to announce a boycott of court proceedings. This move underscores the deep-seated concerns among advocates regarding the transparency and rationale behind judicial transfers, which they perceive as undermining the independence of the judiciary. The Bar Association's decision to abstain from court work is a manifestation of their protest against what they consider arbitrary decisions affecting the judiciary's integrity.
In response to the boycott, the Karnataka High Court has proposed amendments to its rules, aiming to treat such strikes or boycotts by advocates as interference with the administration of justice. The proposed amendments would empower the Chief Justice to suspend advocates who participate in such activities from practicing in any court within the state for a specified period. These changes are part of the draft "rules laying down the conditions subject to which an advocate shall be permitted to practice in the High Court and the courts subordinate thereto (Amendment) Rules, 2024."
The draft rules also introduce the establishment of a Grievance Redressal Committee (GRC), comprising the Chief Justice, two senior judges of the High Court, the Advocate-General, the chairman of the Karnataka State Bar Council, the president of the Bar Association, the Administrative Judge of the High Court, and the Principal District and Sessions Judge. This committee is tasked with addressing grievances of advocates or associations intending to resort to strikes or boycotts. If the advocates do not comply with the committee's advice for an amicable resolution, the GRC can recommend initiating appropriate proceedings, including those under the Contempt of Courts Act, against the concerned advocates.
The High Court's stance reflects its commitment to maintaining the uninterrupted administration of justice and upholding the rule of law. While the Bar Association's protest highlights the need for greater transparency in judicial appointments and transfers, the court's proposed measures aim to prevent disruptions in the legal process. This situation underscores the delicate balance between the advocates' right to protest and the judiciary's responsibility to ensure the continuous delivery of justice.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.