Karnataka HC Suo Motu Case on Advocate Murders: New SOP for Police Stations, Advocates Protection Act Review (2026)

In a hard-hitting suo motu order dated November 3, 2026, the Karnataka High Court has registered a public interest litigation over the killings of advocates Sriram V. and Manjunath, and the attempt on the life of Senior Advocate Venkataramanappa Sannakki. The Division Bench of Justice D.K. Singh and Justice H. Shanthi Bhushan has directed the State to frame a uniform SOP for the treatment of advocates at police stations, enforce existing directions barring police from settling civil disputes, and examine strengthening the Advocates Protection Act. Title: Karnataka High Court’s Suo Motu Intervention on Advocate Safety, Police Conduct, and the Advocates Protection Act Case Name: Re: Murder of Two Advocates by Name Sriram V. and Manjunath, and Attempt to Murder of Senior Advocate Venkataramanappa Sannakki and Other Connected Matters Case Number: Suo Motu Writ Petition (PIL), Karnataka High Court (formal registration number awaited at time of publication) Court: Karnataka High Court Judges: Justice D.K. Singh and Justice H. Shanthi Bhushan Judgment Date: November 3, 2026 Citation: Not yet reported in a formal law report at the time of writing; order available on the Karnataka High Court’s official record Abstract The Karnataka High Court’s order of November 3, 2026 marks one of the most consequential suo motu interventions in recent memory on the question of lawyer safety in India. Triggered by the murders of advocates Sriram V. and Manjunath, and the attempted murder of Senior Advocate Venkataramanappa Sannakki, the Division Bench of Justice D.K. Singh and Justice H. Shanthi Bhushan has moved beyond condemnation into concrete institutional reform. The Bench has framed four core issues for examination — the safety of advocates practising across the State, the absence of a uniform Standard Operating Procedure for how police personnel receive and treat advocates at police stations, the continuing failure to implement existing directions prohibiting police from settling civil disputes, and the urgent need to strengthen the Advocates Protection Act. This case analysis unpacks the background facts, the Court’s reasoning, the legal framework invoked, the precedents that inform the Bench’s approach, and what the order is likely to mean for advocates, police administration, and the broader relationship between the Bar and the State machinery going forward. Table of Contents Background: The Incidents That Triggered the Suo Motu Case The Court’s Cognizance and Registration of the Suo Motu PIL The Four Issues Framed by the Division Bench “Due Respect, Dignity, and Minimum Professional Courtesy”: The SOP for Police Stations Police Stations Are Not Civil Courts: The Bench’s Observations on Jurisdictional Overreach Advocates as Officers of the Court: The Constitutional and Jurisprudential Basis The Advocates Protection Act and the Push for Stronger Safeguards What Comes Next: Directions, Timelines, and the Road to December 8, 2026 1. Background: The Incidents That Triggered the Suo Motu Case The order did not emerge in a vacuum. Over a span of roughly three weeks in October 2026, Karnataka’s legal fraternity was shaken by a sequence of violent incidents that the Advocates’ Association, Bengaluru (AAB) and the Karnataka State Bar Council (KSBC) brought directly to the Court’s attention. Advocate Sriram V. was murdered in Annapoorneshwari Nagar, Bengaluru, a killing reported on October 9, 2026. Barely nine days later, on October 18, 2026, Advocate Manjunath was killed in Whitefield. Then, on October 28, 2026, an attempt was made on the life of Senior Advocate Venkataramanappa Sannakki of Gauribidanur, Kolar. Three separate incidents, three different parts of the State, one common thread — members of the Bar being targeted while, or because of, discharging their professional obligations. The AAB, at its General Body Meeting on October 29, 2026, resolved to demand stronger non-bailable provisions under the Advocates Protection Act, a uniform SOP for how advocates are treated at police stations, a clear bar on police stations settling civil disputes, and a court-monitored investigation into Manjunath’s murder. That resolution culminated in a statewide court boycott on November 3, 2026, with advocates across Karnataka — including in Mangaluru and other districts — abstaining from judicial work in protest. 2. The Court’s Cognizance and Registration of the Suo Motu PIL Rather than wait for a formal writ petition, the Karnataka High Court exercised its suo motu jurisdiction — a power High Courts routinely invoke under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when matters of public interest and systemic governance failures come to light through media reports or representations, even absent a formally instituted petition. The Division Bench of Justice D.K. Singh and Justice H. Shanthi Bhushan directed the Registry to register the matter as a Suo Motu Writ Petition (PIL), arraying the State of Karnataka, the police authorities, the Bar Council of India, the Karnataka State Bar Council, and the Advocates’ Association, Bengaluru as respondents. Notice was made returnable on December 8, 2026. Advocate General K. Shashi Kiran Shetty appeared and sought time to accept notice on behalf of the State and the police establishment, signalling that the government is expected to respond with a comprehensive status report rather than a perfunctory reply. This is significant: the Court is not treating the matter as a one-off law-and-order issue confined to three FIRs, but as a structural question about how the State protects an entire professional class that is constitutionally entrusted with assisting the administration of justice. 3. The Four Issues Framed by the Division Bench What distinguishes this order from routine condemnatory remarks is the precision with which the Bench has framed the scope of inquiry. The Court identified four distinct issues for examination going forward: first, the overall safety and security of advocates practising across Karnataka, given the rising frequency of threats, assaults, and now fatal attacks; second, the absence of a uniform Standard Operating Procedure governing how advocates are to be received and dealt with when they approach police stations in connection with their professional duties; third, the strict and verifiable implementation of existing SOPs — already issued by the Commissioner of Police and the Director General and Inspector General of Police (DGP and IGP) — that restrain police personnel from entertaining or settling civil disputes between private parties; and fourth, the need to examine whether the existing Advocates Protection Act requires strengthening, including through more stringent, non-bailable provisions, as demanded by the Bar. By breaking the inquiry into these four discrete heads, the Bench has effectively created a roadmap that the State, the police, and the Bar associations must now respond to with specific, verifiable compliance — not generalised assurances. 4. “Due Respect, Dignity, and Minimum Professional Courtesy”: The SOP for Police Stations Perhaps the most widely discussed portion of the order is the Bench’s direction on how advocates must be treated when they walk into a police station. The Court observed that a uniform SOP is required to be put in place “prescribing the manner in which Advocates are to be received and dealt with by police personnel,” and that at the very least, “due respect, dignity and minimum professional courtesy must be extended to an Advocate who approaches a police station in the discharge of his professional obligations.” Importantly, the Bench clarified that this is not about conferring a special privilege on lawyers — it is about ensuring that public servants maintain the basic standard of conduct expected of them towards any professional discharging a legitimate duty. This framing matters because it pre-empts the predictable criticism that such a direction elevates advocates above ordinary citizens; instead, the Court grounds the direction in the baseline standard of public-servant conduct that should apply regardless of who is standing at the counter of a police station. The Bench also directed the State and police authorities to place on record the existing SOPs — because such instructions, in the Court’s own words, “cannot remain confined to paper” and must be backed by genuine supervisory oversight at the field level. 5. Police Stations Are Not Civil Courts: The Bench’s Observations on Jurisdictional Overreach Running parallel to the SOP direction is a sharper and arguably more consequential observation: that police stations across Karnataka have, in several documented instances, functioned as parallel civil courts, with officers attempting to adjudicate or broker settlements in disputes over property, possession, and contractual obligations between private parties. The Bench termed this “a serious issue” requiring direction “to put an end to such illegal activities in the Police Station forthwith,” holding unambiguously that “a Police Station cannot be converted into a forum for adjudication of civil rights or settlement of disputes relating to property, possession, contractual obligations or other civil claims,” and that police authorities “are required to act within the limits of their statutory jurisdiction.” This is not a new legal principle — police powers under the Code of Criminal Procedure (now largely mirrored under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) are confined to investigation of cognisable offences, not civil adjudication — but the Court noted that despite SOPs already issued by the Commissioner of Police and the DGP and IGP restraining such interference, field-level officers continue to disregard them. The Bench has therefore insisted on strict implementation, not merely reiteration, of these existing directions, effectively signalling that non-compliance going forward will attract closer judicial scrutiny. 6. Advocates as Officers of the Court: The Constitutional and Jurisprudential Basis The Bench’s reasoning draws heavily on the settled constitutional and statutory characterisation of advocates as “officers of the Court and partners in the administration and dispensation of justice,” rather than mere representatives of litigants. This framing has deep roots in Indian jurisprudence. The Supreme Court has repeatedly reaffirmed the special status of lawyers within the justice-delivery system — in Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India (1998), the Court distinguished between an advocate’s professional misconduct and ordinary contempt, underscoring the unique disciplinary ecosystem that governs the Bar precisely because of its institutional role. Similarly, in R.K. Anand v. Registrar, Delhi High Court (2009), the Supreme Court examined at length the fiduciary and public-facing obligations that come with an advocate’s dual role as an officer of the court and a professional serving a client. The Karnataka High Court’s present order builds on this foundation by extending the “officer of the court” characterisation beyond the courtroom and into the police station — holding that an advocate who is fearful of walking into a police station to assist a client, obtain a copy of an FIR, or attend an investigation is an advocate whose independence, and by extension the administration of justice itself, is compromised. The Bench was explicit that “an attack upon an Advocate, particularly one resulting in the loss of life, cannot be viewed as an isolated incident, since it also affects the independence of the Bar and the administration of justice.” This also resonates with the broader due-process jurisprudence laid down in D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997), where the Supreme Court issued binding guidelines on police conduct during arrest and detention precisely because unchecked police behaviour corrodes public trust in institutions meant to protect citizens — a concern the Karnataka High Court now extends specifically to the protection of advocates. 7. The Advocates Protection Act and the Push for Stronger Safeguards A central demand pressed by the Advocates’ Association, Bengaluru was the strengthening of the existing Advocates Protection Act — a Karnataka state enactment intended to shield lawyers from violence, intimidation, and arbitrary police action while they discharge professional duties, and which the Bar has publicly referred to by names including the Prohibition of Violence Against Advocates Act, 2023. The AAB’s specific ask includes introducing stringent, non-bailable provisions and making offences under the Act punishable with a minimum of ten years’ imprisonment — a significant escalation from the current framework, which the Bar contends has proven toothless in deterring attacks. The Karnataka High Court has now directed the State to examine the necessity of strengthening this statutory framework, effectively placing the legislative and executive branches on notice that judicial patience with symbolic protective legislation is wearing thin. This mirrors a wider national trend: the Court itself noted that both the Bombay High Court (at its Goa Bench) and the Telangana High Court have, in the recent past, initiated similar suo motu proceedings following killings of advocates in their respective jurisdictions — suggesting that the vulnerability of the legal profession to targeted violence is no longer a localised Karnataka problem but an emerging pattern across Indian states that legislatures and the judiciary are being compelled to confront simultaneously. 8. What Comes Next: Directions, Timelines, and the Road to December 8, 2026 The Karnataka High Court has not left matters at the level of observation — it has issued concrete, time-bound directions. The Advocate General has been asked to file a comprehensive status report on the investigations into the murders of Sriram V. and Manjunath, and the attempted murder of Senior Advocate Sannakki. The DGP and IGP have been directed to file a verified, consolidated, case-wise statement detailing investigations into every reported case involving the murder of an advocate across the State — not merely the three incidents that triggered this proceeding, but a comprehensive audit of the pattern. These compliance documents are due on or before the next hearing date of December 8, 2026, when the Bench is expected to examine the State’s response against each of the four framed issues: advocate safety, the uniform police-station SOP, strict enforcement against police settling civil disputes, and the proposed strengthening of the Advocates Protection Act. For the legal fraternity in Karnataka — and increasingly, for Bar associations across the country watching this order closely — December 8 will be a critical checkpoint. Whether this suo motu intervention translates into genuine institutional reform, or joins the long list of judicial directions that “remain confined to paper,” as the Bench itself cautioned, will depend entirely on what the State places before the Court on that date.