Karnataka High Court Recalls Criminal Contempt Proceedings Accepting Apology Of Advocate Who “Threatened" Sessions Court
|The Court imposed a nominal fine of Rs. 1,000 and directed the advocate to plant and maintain 1,000 fruit-bearing saplings on government or educational institution land as a symbolic corrective measure.
The Karnataka High Court, Dharwad Bench has recalled its earlier order initiating criminal contempt proceedings against an advocate found to have virtually threatened a Sessions Court and hampered trial proceedings, after accepting his affidavit of unconditional apology. In place of contempt action, disciplinary reference to the Bar Council, and criminal prosecution under the BNS, the Court imposed a nominal fine of Rs. 1,000 and directed the advocate to plant and maintain 1,000 fruit-bearing saplings on government or educational institution land as a symbolic corrective measure.
The Court clarified that while the punitive machinery set in motion by its earlier order stood withdrawn, its substantive findings on the advocate's conduct, recorded after reviewing the Sessions Judge's order sheet, would remain undisturbed, underscoring that leniency in sentencing did not amount to exoneration of the underlying misconduct.
A Bench of Justice Hanchate Sanjeevkumar observed, “…Nation building is a continuous process for time immemorial for centuries together. Through a well-merited legal brain, a strong and vibrant nation can be built in achieving a welfare State in the Country. 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. With this object in mind, 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…However, as a warning to the Advocate, Sri. S. Rangaswamy, the Court is of the opinion to impose nominal fine amount and other social action needs to be directed to be performed by the said Sri. S. Rangaswamy, Advocate”.
Senior Advocate P.P. Hegde appeared for the petitioner and Gangadhar J.M., Additional Advocate General appeared for the respondent.
The proceedings arose from a criminal petition filed by several accused persons seeking transfer of a Sessions case pending before the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Koppal, sitting at Gangavathi. While rejecting the transfer petition on April 16, 2026, the High Court, upon perusing the order sheet maintained by the Sessions Judge, found that the accused's advocate, S. Rangaswamy, had misbehaved with the Court in a manner amounting to criminal contempt, virtually threatening the Court and hampering the trial proceedings.
By that order the High Court dismissed the transfer petition with costs of Rs. 1,00,000, and additionally directed that the matter be placed before the Chief Justice and the Advocate General for consideration of criminal contempt proceedings against the advocate, referred the matter to the Karnataka State Bar Council for disciplinary action, and directed the Sessions Court's Chief Ministerial Officer to file a criminal complaint against him under Sections 186 and 228 IPC (corresponding to Sections 221 and 267 of the BNS).
The advocate subsequently sought expungement of these directions, tendering an affidavit of apology, with submissions made on his behalf by senior counsel and supported by the Additional Advocate General, who also urged leniency.
While extensively surveying Supreme Court precedent on the duties and conduct expected of advocates, including Chetak Construction Ltd. v. Om Prakash & Ors. (1998) 4 SCC 577, U.P. Sales Tax Service Association v. Taxation Bar Association (1995) 5 SCC 716, and Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India 1998 (4) SCC 409, the Court emphasised that "no lawyer or litigant can be permitted to browbeat the court or malign the presiding officer with a view to get a favourable order".
“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. Hence, this Court is constrained to take action against the said Advocate, Sri. S. Rangaswamy, to safeguard the dignity and decorum of the Courts in the District Judiciary and also enable the Presiding Officers in the District Judiciary to discharge their work without any fear and favour. Hence, with this object, the above said order was passed”, the Bench had noted at the outset.
“…The Advocate must conduct the case in the most dignified and courteous professional manner. Legal profession is multi-dimensional in character. 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, in this sense, the legal profession is multi-dimensional in character”, the Bench noted.
All other observations, findings, and directions in the original order, including the cost of Rs. 1,00,000 imposed on the accused-petitioners, were left undisturbed. The matter was posted for further hearing on November 02, 2026.
Cause Title: Ravi Basavaraj & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2026:KHC-D:14628)
Appearances:
Petitioner: P.P. Hegde, Senior Counsel, Sheelavant Vijay Kumar Maheshwarappa, Advocate.
Respondent: Gangadhar J.M., Additional Advocate General, Ramesh B. Chilagari, Advocate.