Karnataka High Court orders Committee to frame rules against boycotting lawyers; Rules to be framed to calculate quantum of costs

Last week, a Division Bench of Chief Justice Waghela, and Justice Nagarathna disposed Vishwanath Swami’s writ petition (No.8155 of 2012) filed against the boycotting of courts by lawyers. Swami had approached the High Court after lawyers in Bangalore had boycotted courts following a clash between police personnel and lawyers in the City Civil Courts complex..In the judgment delivered on April 24, 2013 the Bench directed the High Court’s Registrar General to form a committee that would formulate rules with respect to the consequences of lawyers boycotting courts. The High Court relied on the directions provided by the Supreme Court in Harish Uppal’s case decided in 2002..The Court also sought the implementation, within three months, of the resolution adopted by the Bar Council of India on September 29,2002 which dealt with the establishment of “Grievance Redressal Committees” for addressing the problems faced by advocates. The same resolution also states that:.“In case the Bar Associations deviate from the above resolutions and proceed on cessation of work in spite or without the decision of the concerned Grievance Redressal Committee, except in the case of emergency, the Bar Council of the State will take such action as it may deem fit and proper…”.With respect to framing Rules under S.34 of the Advocates Act (“conditions, subject to which an advocate shall be permitted to practice in the High Court and subordinate courts”), the High Court observed that the Karnataka High Court had already framed rules in this regard, however they would require to be amended to include strikes or boycotting of courts by advocates..Interestingly, the Court also observed that there was a need to frame rules for calculating the quantum of costs that Courts impose. The Bench directed the committee constituted for framing rules also be directed to,.“(ii) ..make rules for fixing and regularizing by taxation or otherwise, fees payable as costs by any party in respect of the fees of his adversary’s advocate upon all proceedings in the High Court or in any Subordinate Court in the State, bearing in mind the Report of the Law Commission as well as the recent dicta of the Supreme Court.”