Karnataka High Court Imposes Rs 25,000 Costs While Rebuking Lawyer’s Courtroom Conduct

In Ganesh & Ors v. Govind Reddy & Ors, the Karnataka High Court strongly criticised a lawyer for attempting to influence the Court’s decision while arguing a review petition. The Court observed that the advocate appeared to pressure the judge to pass an order according to his own expectations rather than present legal arguments.

The matter was heard by Justice Hanchate Sanjeevkumar of the Karnataka High Court while deciding a review petition. During the proceedings, the Court found that the lawyer’s conduct crossed acceptable professional limits and undermined the dignity of judicial proceedings.

The Court noted that the advocate’s arguments appeared to be delivered in an aggressive and intimidating tone. According to the judge, the lawyer’s approach suggested an attempt to compel the Court to pass an order favourable to his client’s position.

Justice Sanjeevkumar recorded sharp remarks regarding the conduct of the counsel during the hearing. The Court observed, “Sri.B.M.Arun, learned counsel argued the matter on review petition in the tone of virtually threatening the Court and with an intention to compel to pass the order according to his whims and fancies what he wants.”

The Court further noted that the advocate appeared personally invested in the dispute and had reacted strongly because he had not secured the desired outcome in earlier proceedings. The judge stated that dissatisfaction with a judicial order cannot justify disrespectful behaviour towards the Court.

Explaining the role of advocates in the justice system, the Court emphasised that lawyers are officers of the Court and must assist judges in delivering justice. Their responsibility is to present legal arguments respectfully and professionally, even when they strongly disagree with a decision.

The judge remarked, “Since the main job of lawyer is to assist the Court in dispensation of justice, therefore, the Advocate cannot behave with the Court in a disrespectful manner.” The Court said that shouting or browbeating the bench damages the dignity and decorum expected in courtrooms.

At the same time, the Court chose not to recommend disciplinary proceedings against the advocate before the Bar Council. Justice Sanjeevkumar noted that the lawyer appeared emotionally invested in the case and may have reacted strongly due to personal involvement in the dispute.

The Court also reminded advocates that they cannot substitute themselves for their clients. The judge observed, “The lawyer cannot wear shoes of his client.” According to the Court, expressing personal anger or frustration in the courtroom is inappropriate and inconsistent with professional duties.

Apart from commenting on the advocate’s conduct, the Court also criticised the review petition itself. It described the case as frivolous and vexatious, suggesting that powerful parties were attempting to dominate vulnerable litigants and deny them their rightful share in property.

In conclusion, the Karnataka High Court dismissed the review petition and imposed costs of ₹25,000. The order served as a reminder that courtroom advocacy must remain respectful and focused on assisting the judicial process rather than pressuring the Court.