HARAGI PARASAPPA ALIAS GIDDAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There is no dearth of half-baked, incompetent, irresponsible advocates in legal profession. It appears, their number is increasing rather than decreasing! It is high time the professional body - Bar Council wakes up from its slumber, take a deep breath, examine the level of professional standards and quality of the members practicing the noble legal profession and ensure measures to make available legal services to the community in a proper manner; that quality legal service is made available to the members of the public and the society. For such purpose it may not be sufficient if cosmetic changes are attempted at the entry levels but it is equally important that persons who are in the legal profession and those who might have got in earlier are also possessed with sufficient legal competence and if it is found that the legal equipment and skills of the members of the bar, who had got in earlier is inadequate and needs improvement make efforts and take necessary measure, to achieve this object, when alone can it be said that the Bar council having the responsibility of maintaining professional standards monitoring the conduct of the members of the legal profession is fulfilling the purpose and object of the law, i.e.. The Advocate Act, as a Statutory Authority.

(2.) This writ petition, presented before this Court on 19-1-2011, was found to have been presented in a most defective manner by the registry of this Court on the scrutiny of the writ petition papers and had notified the same on the notice board of the Registry for the rectification of the following defects:

(3.) Even after expiry of 42 days from the notification, the counsel for the Petitioner having not rectified, the matter had been listed before this Court for further orders on 28-6-12011 and this Court granted one more week's time for compliance. The matter was yet again on 19-8-2011, and on that day though the matter was called twice during the course of the day, there was no representation for the Petitioner. However, one more week's time was granted for rectification and the Registry was directed to list the matter for preliminary hearing if defects are removed and otherwise for dismissal on 25-8-2011. This is the background in which petition is now listed before this Court.