Bengaluru: The Dharwad bench of the Karnataka high court recently imposed a token cost of Rs 1,000 and directed S Rangaswamy, an advocate from Ballari, to plant and maintain 1,000 fruit-bearing saplings on any government land or school/college premises. Justice Hanchate Sanjeevkumar passed the order on Sept 1 while hearing a petition filed by 10 accused persons represented by Rangaswamy, seeking transfer of their case to another court.

The judge also directed the advocate to file a compliance affidavit by Oct 31 regarding payment of the cost and planting of the trees, with the matter to be considered on Nov 2. After accepting an apology submitted by Rangaswamy through an affidavit, Justice Sanjeevkumar recalled other directions issued against him on April 16 by a sessions court judge at Gangavathi. The judge had referred the matter to the Chief Justice and the advocate general for initiating contempt proceedings against Rangaswamy and to the Karnataka State Bar Council for action for professional misconduct.

The sessions judge had also directed registration of a complaint against Rangaswamy for offences punishable under IPC Sections 186 and 228 (BNS Sections 221 and 267), observing that he had attempted to hamper the proceedings in the sessions case. All these directions have now been recalled. However, the sessions judge’s order imposing a cost of Rs 1 lakh on the 10 accused represented by Rangaswamy remains in force. The accused had sought transfer of the case, in which allegations of murder, unlawful assembly and rioting had been invoked, to another court. Other observations made by the sessions judge also remain.

Referring to various Supreme Court judgments, Justice Sanjeevkumar noted that an advocate is a “spokesman of the court” and has a duty to cooperate and coordinate with it in the dispensation of justice. An advocate must conduct a case in a dignified and courteous professional manner, the judge said, adding that the legal profession is multi-dimensional, with an advocate owing duties to the court, the client, and society.

The order highlights the judiciary’s emphasis on maintaining professional standards among legal practitioners. While the specific misconduct of Rangaswamy is not detailed in the report, the court’s decision underscores the importance of ethical conduct in the legal profession. The requirement to plant saplings reflects an effort to integrate environmental responsibility with legal accountability. The case also illustrates the complex interplay between judicial oversight and disciplinary actions within the legal system.

The court’s decision to recall previous orders against Rangaswamy suggests a nuanced approach to addressing professional misconduct. While the sessions judge’s order remains in effect, the high court’s intervention indicates a willingness to reassess and adjust disciplinary measures. This case serves as a reminder of the ongoing challenges in balancing legal accountability with the need for fair and just proceedings.