In a memorandum addressed to the Chief Justice of India, signed by over 100 advocates and submitted by T.G. Ravi, General Secretary of the Advocates’ Association, Bengaluru, they highlighted issues such as inefficiency, unequal work distribution, and systemic challenges affecting the court’s reputation.
Karnataka: A group of advocates from the Karnataka High Court, including several senior members of the Bar, have expressed serious concerns about the administrative and judicial performance of the Chief Justice.
In a memorandum addressed to the Chief Justice of India, signed by over 100 advocates and submitted by T.G. Ravi, General Secretary of the Advocates’ Association, Bengaluru, they highlighted issues such as inefficiency, unequal work distribution, and systemic challenges affecting the court’s reputation.
The advocates emphasized they have no personal agenda and are acting solely to “restore the glory of the High Court and rebuild public confidence in the institution.”
A key allegation focuses on the Chief Justice’s punctuality.
The memorandum states, “The Chief Justice has not started court proceedings at 10:30 a.m. for several months and consistently finishes much earlier than 4:45 p.m.”
This, they argue, has hindered the disposal of important cases, including Public Interest Litigations (PILs), Writ Appeals, and Green Bench matters.
The advocates added that delayed case listings and insufficient court hours discourage lawyers and litigants from approaching the High Court, eroding public trust in the institution.
Additionally, they criticized the handling of judicial rosters and the uneven allocation of judges to the Kalaburagi and Dharwad benches. According to the memorandum, some judges have avoided assignments at these benches for over a year, while others face an excessive workload.
“Inequitable distribution of subjects and duties has caused dissatisfaction among judges, potentially harming the justice delivery system,” the letter noted.
The memorandum also alleges corruption within the court’s administrative office, claiming that significant bribes are required to list cases before specific benches or expedite hearings.
Senior Bar members and elected representatives have reportedly raised these concerns with the judiciary previously. The advocates urged the higher judiciary to conduct a discreet investigation, expressing faith in the system.
“As officers of the court, we feel it is our duty to highlight these issues so they can be addressed,” the memorandum concluded.
