“Repeated instructions cannot remain confined to paper,” the Karnataka High Court has said while registering a Suo Motu PIL over the recent murders of advocates in the State, seeking case-wise investigation details from the police and directing that police stations stop entertaining or settling civil disputes.
Bengaluru: Police stations cannot be turned into forums for settling civil disputes, the Karnataka High Court has said, as it initiated suo motu public interest proceedings on Tuesday on the rising incidents of violence, assaults, threats and murders of advocates across the State. The Court held that an attack on a lawyer cannot be treated as an isolated crime because it strikes at the independence of the Bar and the administration of justice [Suo Moto v. State of Karnataka & Others].
The oral order was passed on November 3, 2026 by a Division Bench of Justice D.K. Singh and Justice H. Shanthi Bhushan, with Justice D.K. Singh speaking for the Bench. Notice was issued to the respondents, returnable on December 8, 2026.
Police stations and private civil disputes
Alongside the safety concerns, the representatives of the Bar raised a second grievance: that police stations, in several instances, had assumed the role of parallel courts by taking up civil disputes between private parties and trying to settle them, despite standard operating procedures (SOPs) issued by the Commissioner of Police and the Director General of Police forbidding this. According to the Bar, Inspectors, Sub-Inspectors and Assistant Commissioners of Police at the field level were not following those instructions.
Calling police involvement in private civil disputes a serious issue, the Bench observed that existing instructions appeared not to be followed:
“A Police Station cannot be converted into a forum for adjudication of civil rights or settlement of disputes relating to property, possession, contractual obligations or other civil claims… Repeated instructions cannot remain confined to paper.”
The State Government and the Police Department were directed to ensure that all police stations are specifically instructed not to entertain or settle civil disputes, except where a criminal offence requiring action in accordance with law is disclosed. The Court also called for a separate SOP for receiving and examining complaints by advocates against police officers, under the supervision of senior officers, so that such complaints are acknowledged and dealt with within a reasonable time.
The incidents placed before the Court
The matter reached the Bench through the President and office-bearers of the Advocates’ Association, Bengaluru (AAB) and the Chairman and members of the Karnataka State Bar Council (KSBC), who asked it to act in public interest. Their representation referred to the murders of advocates Sriram V., reported on October 9, 2026, and Manjunath, reported on October 18, 2026, and to the alleged attempt to murder Senior Advocate Venkataramanappa Sannakki of Gauribidanur on October 28, 2026.
The Bar bodies said adequate preventive measures had not been taken and sought prompt registration of FIRs and investigation by a Special Investigation Team in offences against advocates. The order records that the AAB general body resolved on October 29 to protest the lack of security for lawyers, and that advocates across Karnataka abstained from judicial work on November 3 to press for a stronger Advocates Protection Act.
Advocates are officers of the Court, says Bench
The Bench said the issues were not the concern of the Bar bodies alone. It held:
“An Advocate must be able to represent the cause of his client fearlessly, without apprehension of physical harm, threat or intimidation. An attack upon an Advocate, particularly one resulting in the loss of life, cannot be viewed as an isolated incident, since it also affects the independence of the Bar and the administration of justice.”
On how lawyers are received at police stations, the Court said a uniform SOP is needed and added:
“At the least, due respect, dignity and minimum professional courtesy must be extended to an Advocate who approaches a police station in the discharge of his professional obligations. This is not to confer any special privilege upon an Advocate, but to ensure that public servants maintain proper conduct and extend the courtesy expected of them towards members of the legal profession.”
On the statute, the Bench said:
“The concerns expressed by the Bar cannot be addressed merely by issuing assurances. Appropriate legislative and administrative measures, supported by an effective mechanism for implementation, are required.”
The Court noted that the Bombay High Court at Goa and the Telangana High Court had also initiated suo motu proceedings after killings of advocates.
What the respondents have been asked to do
- The Registry will register a suo motu PIL on the representation of the AAB and the KSBC. The State (through the Chief Secretary and the Principal Secretary, Home), the DG and IGP, the Bengaluru Police Commissioner, the jurisdictional DCP, the Bar Council of India, the KSBC and the AAB are respondents.
- The Home Department and the DG and IGP must place the existing SOPs and instructions on record, the steps taken to implement them, the measures proposed to strengthen statutory protection for advocates, and the mechanism for complaints by advocates against police personnel.
- The State must examine whether the Advocates Protection Act needs strengthening and file its response on proposed legislative and administrative measures.
- The police must give case-wise details of every murder of an advocate reported in Karnataka, including the crime number, sections invoked, accused, arrests, material collected, charge-sheet status and, where probes are pending, the reasons for delay, in a statement verified by the DG and IGP.
- Advocate General K. Shashi Kiran Shetty was requested to accept notice and file a status report on the investigation into the recent incidents. Other respondents must file affidavits.
The investigations into the killings and the alleged attempt to murder are pending. The Court has not examined the facts of any individual case, and anyone accused in them is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
Why the order matters
Lawyer safety is treated in the order as a question of access to justice rather than a professional demand, and the State has been put on notice that assurances alone will not do. With verified, case-wise data sought on every advocate’s murder, the Court has created a way to track whether these investigations are moving.
The direction on civil disputes reaches beyond lawyers. It speaks to a common complaint of ordinary litigants that property and money disputes are pushed into police stations instead of civil courts, and it calls for accountability of field officers who ignore existing SOPs.
Case Title: Suo Moto v. State of Karnataka & Others (Suo Moto PIL; In re: murder of Advocates Sriram V. and Manjunath and attempt to murder of Senior Advocate Venkataramanappa Sannakki)
Bench: Justice D.K. Singh and Justice H. Shanthi Bhushan, Karnataka High Court
Date of Order: November 3, 2026
Next Hearing: December 8, 2026
Appearance: K. Shashi Kiran Shetty, Advocate General, requested to accept notice for the State