The High Court of Karnataka on Thursday directed the Hubballi-Dharwad Police Commissioner to provide police protection to advocates who want to represent the three Kashmiri students arrested on the charges of allegedly raising pro-Pakistan slogans.
The court said that police protection should be provided to the advocates from their entry into Hubballi for allowing them entry to the court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, meeting the accused to take their signatures for representing them before the JMFC to seek release on bail, and to argue the case on behalf of the accused students.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Abhay Shreeniwas Oka and Justice Hemant Chandangoudar passed the interim order on a PIL petition filed by a group of 24 Bengaluru-based advocates led by B.T. Venkatesh.
It was pointed out in the petition that no lawyer was able to represent the three students when they were produced before the magistrate in view of an “illegal” resolution passed by Bar Association Hubballi (BAH) asking its members not to represent the accused for their anti-national conduct.
All the petitioner-advocates filed affidavits before the High Court stating that they are prepared to represent the accused students but expressed need for protection in view of the violence reported on the magistrate court premises in Hubballi when the accused were produced.
The police should give protection even for advocates from BAH if they chose to represent the accused students, the Bench said.
Stating that it is the duty of the police to give protection to the lawyers to ensure that the accused are not deprived of the service of a lawyer as it would amount to violation of fundamental rights guaranteed to the accused persons under the Constitution, the Bench said that it is open to the petitioners to approach the High Court if adequate protection is not provided by the police.
Contrary SC dictum
While observing that the resolution of the BAH is ex-facie contrary to the verdicts of the apex court, which had declared such resolutions passed by various bar associations as wholly illegal and against traditions of the Bar, the Bench directed the petitioners to request BAH to reconsider its resolution by sending copies of the apex court’s verdicts in A.S. Mohammed Rafi Vs State of Tamil Nadu, ex-captain Harish Uppal Vs. Union of India and other cases.
The Bench also said that it hopes that BAH would take necessary steps as a association of advocates is bound by constitutional mandate and the rules framed by the Bar Council of India.
Stating that it will have to examine whether resolution of BAH amounts to interference in administration of justice and contempt of court proceedings required to initiated against office-bearers of the BAH, the Bench said that if the BAH refuses to reconsider the resolution then the court would consider such a conduct during the next hearing.
The accused students, Basit Ashiq Sofi, Talib Majeed and Aamir Mohiuddin Wani, who were studying in an engineering college, were remanded to judicial custody till March 2 after the video of them raising pro-Pakistan slogans went viral on social media.
