Introduction:

In the matter of HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AND State of Karnataka , the Karnataka High Court addressed the alleged assault on an advocate by the police in Chikmagalur District. The court, presided over by Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice Krishna S Dixit, took cognizance of the incident based on a representation by the Advocates’ Association of Bengaluru (AAB). The court’s scrutiny encompassed the handling of the case, investigations conducted, and the plea for the appointment of a Special Investigation Team (SIT).

Arguments of Both Sides:  

Senior Advocate Vivek Subba Reddy, representing the Bar Association, underscored concerns about delays in the preliminary investigation stage and alleged tampering with evidence by local police. He advocated for a neutral investigation agency, expressing apprehensions about the fairness of the ongoing inquiry. Reddy argued for the appointment of an SIT to ensure an impartial investigation free from external influences.

Conversely, the court raised apprehensions about intervening in the investigation stage, highlighting the need for adherence to legal mandates. It emphasized the importance of allowing investigative agencies, like the CID, to function without undue interference.

Court’s Judgement:  

The High Court disposed of the suo-motu petition, expressing confidence in the ongoing CID investigation and the discretion of the Investigating Officer (IO) to pursue the matter in accordance with the law. It rejected calls for the appointment of an independent investigative agency, considering it legally impermissible. The court declined to set a fixed timeline for the investigation, emphasizing that the process should proceed expediently, guided by service law regulations.

In parting remarks, the court urged the Advocate General to ensure fairness and independence in the investigation, emphasizing the importance of not just delivering justice but also ensuring its perceptible fairness.