Karnataka High Court Mandates Preliminary Police Inquiry Before Registering Cases Against Advocates
The Karnataka High Court has issued a significant directive to law enforcement agencies, requiring them to conduct a preliminary inquiry before registering criminal offences against advocates. This order comes in response to what the court describes as a dangerous trend of complainants implicating lawyers in criminal cases merely because they represent the accused.
Court's Concern Over 'Chilling Effect' on Legal Profession
Justice M Nagaprasanna, in a recent order, expressed deep concern about this emerging pattern. The court observed that complainants have begun to file improbable criminal charges against advocates as a retaliatory measure. Justice Nagaprasanna emphasized that if this trend continues unchecked, it could have a chilling effect on the legal profession, potentially leading to complaints against every practicing lawyer.
The bench stated, "Therefore, the police should, prior to registration of the crime against the advocates, consider an enquiry to be conducted albeit prima facie, with regards to the allegations made by the complainants against the advocates."
Background of the Case That Prompted the Directive
The court's directive was issued while staying further investigation in a specific criminal case registered against advocate Yaseen Saleh. The case highlights the troubling dynamics at play:
- Advocate Yaseen Saleh represents a woman in matrimonial and civil proceedings against her husband.
- The husband, as complainant, named Yaseen as accused number 10 in an FIR filed against his wife.
- The FIR includes charges under various sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
Senior Advocate Vivek Subba Reddy, representing Yaseen, argued that the dispute is fundamentally between husband and wife, and involving their legal representative is inappropriate. Yaseen's petition further contends that the FIR is pre-planned and retaliatory, noting that provisions of the SC/ST Act cannot be invoked since both complainant and accused belong to the same caste.
Advocate's Proactive Measures and Legal Arguments
Interestingly, advocate Yaseen had anticipated such retaliatory action. On December 26, 2025, he submitted a written complaint via email to multiple police authorities, including:
- KG Halli police station
- East Bengaluru Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP)
- Bengaluru Police Commissioner
In his complaint, Yaseen specifically warned that the woman's husband was threatening to register false FIRs against him. His legal plea argues that roping in an advocate for merely representing a client is per se illegal and constitutes an abuse of legal process.
Court's Future Course of Action
The Karnataka High Court has indicated that it will issue a detailed order on this matter at a later stage. The case has been scheduled for further hearing on February 19, 2026. This interim directive serves as a crucial protective measure for legal professionals while the court deliberates on the broader implications of such complaints against advocates.
This development underscores the judiciary's role in safeguarding the integrity of legal representation and preventing the misuse of criminal procedures to intimidate or harass advocates performing their professional duties.
