Bengaluru lawyers boycotted proceedings at the Karnataka High Court and several city courts on November 3 to protest attacks and killings involving advocates, demanding stronger protection and legal safeguards for the profession. The Bengaluru Advocates Association said the protest was also linked to concerns over alleged police intervention in civil disputes.
Lawyers from the High Court, City Civil Court, magistrate courts and Mayo Hall Court joined the statewide protest called by the Bengaluru Advocates Association. Proceedings were boycotted after the day’s hearings began, with advocates later gathering outside the Karnataka High Court’s Golden Gate.
Association president Vivek Subbareddy and Karnataka State Bar Council president R. Rajanna led a delegation that presented its concerns before a division bench comprising Justice D.K. Singh and Justice H. Shantibhushan. According to the report, the bench accepted the representation and said it would take suo motu cognisance of the issue through a public interest litigation case concerning the protection of lawyers.
Separately, a division bench headed by Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru took cognisance of contempt proceedings against the advocates’ association over its call for the boycott, the report said. The development placed the protest alongside a judicial examination of the demands raised by lawyers and the decision to suspend court work.
Addressing the gathering outside the High Court, Subbareddy alleged that police stations were intervening in civil disputes and functioning as unofficial centres for settling property-related matters. He claimed that this was creating risks for advocates and contributing to disorder in the state. These allegations were made by the association and were not independently established in the supplied report.
The protest followed the killing of advocate Manjunath Shriram of Whitefield and advocate Manjunath of Annapoorneshwari Nagar, as well as an alleged attempt on the life of advocate Venkataramana Sannakki of Gauribidanur. The advocates demanded effective provisions in a proposed or existing lawyers’ protection framework and called for a sentence of up to 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment for attacks on lawyers.
The association also opposed quasi-judicial proceedings conducted under the authority of sub-divisional officials and deputy commissioners, arguing that such processes should be removed. Its representatives said the issue affected more than the legal profession because the safety and independence of lawyers were linked to access to constitutional remedies and justice for ordinary citizens.
Karnataka State Bar Council president Rajanna expressed full support for the association’s action, while vice-president Shivamurthy said all 191 lawyers’ associations in the state had backed the protest. By around noon, crowds had increased near a metro station and the Vidhana Soudha gate, according to the report.
The High Court’s proposed suo motu public interest proceedings and the contempt case against the association are the next formal steps identified in the report. Further directions from the court will determine how the lawyers’ safety demands and the boycott-related proceedings develop.
