Karnataka High Court Justice K Natarajan questions AAB resolution against him

Justice K Natarajan of the Karnataka High Court on Friday questioned why he was singled out in a resolution recently passed by the Advocates Association of Bengaluru (AAB)..The judge observed that any grievances the lawyers may have had on long-pending part-heard matters could have been directly raised before him. "The advocates who made complaints to the Bar Association President - come and say that they are interested in releasing the part heard. Why should I keep all the cases? ... Some resolution is circulated in social media. Is it not damaging the image of the court? As a judge, my name was taken, along with the Delhi case. What was the necessity?" he asked..He added that many cases before him remain part-heard for reasons beyond his control. Lawyers may not be ready to argue or may argue for hours or the case may not reach because of the large number of cases listed on a particular day, he said.The judge added that he had around 16,000 cases pending before him to begin with and that over 5,000 additional cases were later added to this caseload after the retirement of a fellow judge. "Is it possible to hear within five minutes and dispose of the matter? And senior counsel argue for hours together. I am taking matters from morning to evening, sitting beyond office hours," he said. .Several counsel appearing before the judge, in response, urged him not to release the part heard matters in which they were appearing. Justice Natarajan, however, proceeded to pass a series of orders releasing various part-heard cases. The judge reasoned that he would not be able to hear these cases, which are pending before the Bengaluru Bench, any time soon. He explained that he would be sitting at the Kalburgi Bench of the Court for a month and that the upcoming court holidays would also delay hearings of such part-heard cases. "It came to the knowledge of this Court that through social media, the Bar Association requested the Chief Justice to release part-heard matters, otherwise they will go for agitation. Such being the case, it is not fit for me to take the part heard matters when I am sitting at the Kalburgi Bench and it is not possible to hear the matter in this month (or) in the April month ... It is deemed proper to release (the matter from part-heard list) ... Interim order granted is extended," the judge observed while dictating the order in one such matter. .Justice Natarajan added that even if the counsel wished that the part heard cases continue to be taken up by him, he was not inclined to do so in view of the AAB resolution passed against him. If any lawyers have a grievance with this, they can put it in writing or approach the Chief Justice for a restoration of the case, the judge suggested. One matter so released was a matter in which the AAB President Vivek Subba Reddy's father, KN Subba Reddy had appeared. This aspect of the matter was also reflected in the order dictated by Justice Natarajan."Though this matter was heard substantially... the very son of KN Subba Reddy, who is the president of AAB, passed a resolution for releasing from part heard matters. Hence, releasing the matter from part heard," he said. .The AAB resolution that prompted this turn of events was issued on March 24. It primarily expressed concerns over the corruption allegations that cropped up recently against Justice Yashwant Varma.However, it also demanded the release of part-heard matters from Justice K Natarajan's Bench citing concerns that there were an unduly large number of such cases pending before him. Days later, some lawyers - including former AAB office bearers - questioned why such remarks were made against Justice Natarajan. "(It) constitutes forum shopping and does not align with the actual and correct discussions held during the General Body Meeting ... The said resolution pointing out and singling out a particular Justice ... does not (bode) well unless there are certain serious omissions and/or commissions of that particular judge that are discussed," the lawyers said in a letter to AAB on March 26..[Read AAB Resolution]