In a significant ruling, the Kerala High Court has directed 28 lawyers to provide free legal aid as a means of purging themselves of criminal contempt. The case, Contempt Case (Crl.) No. 6 of 2023, was initiated suo motu by the Court following an unruly incident in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) in Kottayam on November 23, 2023.
Incident Details
The incident involved approximately 200 advocates who stormed into the courtroom of CJM Viveeja Sethumohan, shouting slogans against her. The protest was triggered by the registration of a criminal forgery case against a fellow lawyer, Advocate MP Navab, based on a complaint by a court officer. The disruptive behavior halted court proceedings for about 5 to 8 minutes and was recorded by videographers, with the footage widely shared on social media.
Legal Issues Involved
The primary legal issue in this case was whether the conduct of the advocates constituted criminal contempt of court. Under Section 15(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and Article 215 of the Constitution of India, the Kerala High Court initiated contempt proceedings based on the report from the Chief Judicial Magistrate.
Court’s Decision
The Division Bench, comprising Justice P.B. Suresh Kumar and Justice C. Pratheep Kumar, found that the actions of the advocates interfered with the administration of justice and tended to lower the authority of the court. Despite the unconditional apologies tendered by the 28 respondents, the Court decided that mere apologies were insufficient given the gravity of their actions.
Key Observations and Ruling
The Court noted:
“This court is of the view that the respondents ought not be allowed to get away by merely offering sorry by way of an apology as the easiest way.”
Instead, the Court ordered the 28 lawyers to provide free legal services to the poor and needy through the District Legal Services Authority, Kottayam, for a period of six months. The Secretary of the District Legal Services Authority is tasked with assigning legal aid work to these lawyers and monitoring their progress.
The Court emphasized that this order would not affect the lawyers’ right to practice law or pursue their careers based on their qualifications and experience.
Parties Involved
– Petitioner: Kerala High Court (suo motu)
– Respondents:
– Adv. Sojan Pavanios (Party in Person)
– Adv. Benny Kurian
– Adv. K.A. Prasad
– Adv. Tomy K. James
– Adv. M.P. Thankom
– Adv. Anu Stephen
– Adv. Joshy Cheeppunkal
– Adv. Manu J. Varappally
– Adv. Abhishek R
– Adv. Baiju Thomas
– Adv. N. Gopalakrishnan
– Adv. Jayaprakash V
– Adv. Manu Tom Thomas
– Adv. Muhammad Siraj
– Adv. Richu Tharian Reji
– Adv. Tom K Jos
– Adv. Thomas Joseph
– Adv. Alex P. Raju
– Adv. Rahul Sukumaran
– Adv. Vishnu Mani
– Adv. James K. Peter
– Adv. Ajayakumar K. G
– Adv. Ajithan Nampoothiri C. S
– Adv. Ajithkumar S
– Adv. Anupa Das
– Adv. Bindhu Abraham
– Adv. Anagha J
– Adv. Amalu Elizebeth
– Adv. George K. M
Also Read
Counsel for Respondents
– Senior Advocates:
– P. Viswanathan
– T. Krishnanunni
– P. Vijayabhanu
– T. Sethumadhavan
– Joseph Kodiantahra
