More than 100 advocates practising at the Karnataka High Court have petitioned Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna to address what they describe as systemic failures under High Court Chief Justice NV Anjaria. In a memorandum submitted on December 2—signed by over 100 advocates led by the Advocates’ Association Bangalore general secretary TG Ravi—severe allegations have been raised of judicial inefficiency, inequitable case allocation, and corruption within the court registry. They alleged that these issues have eroded public trust in the judiciary and compromised the timely delivery of justice in Karnataka.
In the letter, the advocates accused the Chief Justice of consistently failing to adhere to the scheduled court timings. According to them, the court has not commenced at the designated time of 10.30 am for several months, often starting an hour later and concluding much earlier than the stipulated time of 4.45 pm. This, they claimed, has severely impacted the disposal of cases, particularly urgent matters such as Public Interest Litigations (PILs) and environmental disputes. The memorandum said that many litigants and lawyers have lost faith in the system, believing that filing matters in the High Court serves little purpose due to the prolonged delays and reduced working hours.
Justice NV Anjaria became Chief Justice of the High Court of Karnataka on February 25 this year, becoming the third CJ in just 32 days. The earlier Chief Justice, Prasanna B Varale, was elevated as a judge of the Supreme Court on January 24, 2024. Justice PS Dinesh Kumar then took the oath as Chief Justice on February 3, but his tenure was cut short when he retired on February 24, after serving just 22 days.
“The court of the Chief Justice has not been able to dispose of matters at anywhere close to the expected numbers of a constitutional court, again leading to advocates and litigants losing belief that they will get justice,” the letter read.
Adding to their grievances, the advocates alleged inequity in the allocation of judicial responsibilities and the rotation of judges between the High Court’s Bengaluru, Dharwad, and Kalaburagi benches. They alleged that certain judges have been unfairly burdened with repeated postings to regional benches, while others have remained at the Bengaluru bench with minimal work. “The allotment of subjects and sittings at the various benches being inequitable and lopsided has led to a simmering dissent amongst several judges. This is a very unhealthy development and has the potential to impair the justice delivery system of the High Court.”
The memorandum also addressed allegations of corruption in the court registry. Advocates alleged that bribes were being demanded to prioritise certain cases for listing or to delay others. This malpractice, according to them, had created an environment where influential litigants enjoyed preferential treatment while others faced unnecessary delays. The memorandum called for a discreet inquiry into these allegations to uncover the extent of the malpractice and hold those responsible accountable.
Several Karnataka High Court advocates, who spoke to TNM on the condition of anonymity, alleged that bribery within the registry is an open secret.
In a separate letter dated November 28, former Advocates’ Association president AP Ranganatha reiterated similar concerns in a communication to the Chief Justice of India. Ranganatha pointed to the alleged accumulation of backlogs and inefficiencies in judicial processes, particularly in cases involving education, environmental protection, and public welfare.
“The concentration of such crucial cases in the hands of the Chief Justice has further compounded the backlog, and despite the importance of these cases, the time required for their hearing and disposal has resulted in prolonged waiting periods for litigants. This state of affairs has severely affected the timely delivery of justice, and I respectfully submit that the situation demands urgent attention,” Ranganatha said in his letter.
Speaking to TNM, Ranganatha said, “The Chief Justice is not able to take control of the situation. The Chief Justice is a model for the entire judiciary. If the Chief Justice doesn't follow the law, then who will care? The system is collapsing.”
The concerns raised by the Advocates’ Association, Bengaluru, are not new. Similar grievances were voiced in January 2024 when the association wrote to the then CJ, Prasanna B Varale. In their letter, the advocates expressed high expectations for his tenure, hoping for a more disciplined approach to addressing the registry’s inefficiencies and the persistent issues in listing cases. They also expressed their disappointment in how these problems allegedly remained unresolved despite their earlier appeals.
The association’s letter pointed to a lack of responsiveness from the registry, where lawyers often found themselves running from pillar to post, unable to get their cases posted. Among the major issues cited were allegedly arbitrary restrictions on the number of cases that could be listed, confusion caused by court officers selectively deciding which cases to post, and minor objections raised by the registry that delayed proceedings unnecessarily. They also criticised registrars for allegedly failing to address grievances and for their administrative incapacity in handling these challenges effectively.
They further alleged that vigilance and judicial registries were ineffective in curbing errant behaviour by officers and staff, enabling a system where lawyers were left frustrated and unable to provide clarity to their clients about the status of their cases.
The advocates lamented that the situation had reached a boiling point, with many lawyers insisting on convening a General Body meeting to address these escalating issues. The association called for urgent administrative reforms, including the establishment of a new Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) to streamline processes and ensure fairness. They recalled the tenure of Justice Abhay Srinivas Oka, during which registry operations were far more efficient, with cases posted promptly and the registry maintaining a cautious and responsive approach.
As a potential solution, the advocates suggested reintroducing the practice of automatically listing memos for judicial review within four or five days. This policy, they argued, had previously worked well and would remove discretionary power from registry staff, ensuring cases were addressed promptly and transparently.
In October 2024, the association wrote a similar letter to current Chief Justice NV Anjaria, reiterating these concerns and calling for necessary reforms.