Instances of litigants appearing before the High Court of Karnataka to argue their cases when their lawyers don't turn up, particularly during boycott calls, are steadily on the rise.
Monday was one such day. Advocates boycotted the court proceedings to protest what they called the biased media coverage, particularly by television news channels, of the violence that took place at the city civil court complex here on March 2. In their lawyers' absence, many litigants, on their lawyers' advice, personally appeared before the courts. While some sought adjournments, others argued their cases.
Decades-old case
Adjudicating one such case, a Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice Vikramajit Sen and Justice B.V. Nagarathna, disposed of an appeal related to the pension benefit of a retired employee of Mysore University.
In the absence of the university advocate, Special Officer (Finance) of Mysore University B.K. Ramaprasad made submissions before the Bench against the plea related to a 40-year-old dispute over salary benefits to M.R. Sannarame Gowda, retired deputy librarian who's now 79.
The Bench heard the case for about an hour and upheld the order of the single judge, which had not allowed the plea.
Talking to The Hindu , Mr. Ramaprasad said: “I made submissions personally before the judges for the first time. We give advocates a lot of information. Today I realised how difficult it is for advocates to present the information before the court to the satisfaction of the clients.”
Legal awareness
T.P. Rajendra Kumar Sungay, counsel for the university, observed that nowadays litigants' legal knowledge is so good some lawyers request them to appear before the judges personally under unavoidable circumstances such as the one that cropped up on Monday.
“Unlike in the past, increasing numbers of litigants have exposure to court proceedings and law. Advocates too find it a good alternative to ensure that the litigant does not suffer,” Mr. Sungay added.
Beggars' Home case
In another case, K. Prasad, a teacher, appeared in court in connection with his public interest litigation related to tender invited for supplying food for patients at the Shimoga district hospital, and sought adjournment.
As government counsel too abstained from the proceedings, R.N. Rajanaik, secretary, Central Relief Committee (Beggar's Relief Centre) of the Social Welfare Department, appeared before the Bench and placed before it the Government Order cancelling allotment of the centre's land to the Bangalore Development Authority, as directed by the court earlier.
