Kerala High Court Denies Judge’s Plea To Engage Lawyer in a departmental inquiry, holding that a judicial officer facing charges cannot insist on a legal practitioner when another judge is assisting him.
Ernakulam: The Kerala High Court has dismissed a writ petition by a serving Additional District and Sessions Judge who challenged a revised memo of charges in disciplinary proceedings against him and the withdrawal of permission to engage a lawyer before the Inquiring Authority, holding that he cannot insist on being defended by a legal practitioner [X v. The Registrar (District Judiciary) and Others].
Justice Gopinath P. delivered the judgment on October 23, 2026. The Court left the judicial officer free to seek more time to reply to the amended charges and to apply for recall of witnesses already examined. The petitioner is identified only as X in the judgment, and the charges are allegations that remain to be determined in the inquiry.
How the case reached here
The inquiry is being held under the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1960, before an Inquiring Authority who is a High Court judge. The petitioner first asked to be allowed to engage a lawyer. According to the material before the Court, permission was initially given, but it was withdrawn after the Presenting Officer objected, and the Inquiring Authority’s order refusing a lawyer is dated November 17, 2025. The petitioner then arranged for another District Judge to assist him and took part in the inquiry.
Some witnesses, including the complainant, had been examined when the charges were revised. The petitioner argued that amending the charges at that stage was improper and prejudicial to him, and he asked that the inquiry proceed on the original charges. The State’s standing counsel, Shajna M., relied on Rule 15(3), which allows the authority to amend the charges at any stage, and on Rule 15(6), which bars engaging a legal practitioner during the inquiry. Senior Advocate S. Sreekumar led the petitioner’s side.
Amendment of charges
The Court held that Rule 15(3) does not tie the power to amend charges to any particular stage of the inquiry. Since the petitioner had not challenged the validity of that sub-rule, the revised charges could not be declared illegal. Any prejudice from the timing, the Court indicated, can be met by allowing him to recall witnesses and to reply afresh.
The request for a lawyer
On the lawyer question, the Court examined the Supreme Court decisions in Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay v. Dilipkumar Raghavendranath Nadkarni (1983) and Ramesh Chandra v. Delhi University (2015), and distinguished them. It found the closest authority to be Dinesh Chandra Pandey v. High Court of Madhya Pradesh (2010), where the rules were similarly worded and a judicial officer was held to have no automatic right to a lawyer. The only difference, the Court noted, was that the present challenge came before the inquiry had ended.
the petitioner cannot insist that he must be permitted to engage a legal practitioner to defend him in the proceedings.
The Court added that, although the charges may be serious, they are not complicated in themselves. It also weighed that the petitioner had accepted the help of another judicial officer and had participated in the inquiry after the lawyer request was rejected.
The legal position
In Dinesh Chandra Pandey, the Supreme Court treated the word ‘may’ in the relevant rule as directory rather than mandatory, so a delinquent officer has no absolute right to be represented by a lawyer. It also observed that a serving judge is not a ‘legal practitioner’, and that an officer can seek help from another judicial officer of comparable rank, provided no prejudice results. The Kerala High Court applied that reasoning to Rule 15(6) of the 1960 Rules.
Why the judgment matters
The decision reinforces that in departmental inquiries against judicial officers, the right to defend is satisfied by assistance from a fellow officer and does not extend to a lawyer as of right. It also confirms that charges may be amended mid-inquiry under Rule 15(3), with fairness protected by recall of witnesses and fresh time to reply. The inquiry itself continues, and no finding on the charges has been made.
Case Title: X v. The Registrar (District Judiciary) and Others [WP(C) No. 33217 of 2026]
Bench: Justice Gopinath P., Kerala High Court
Date of Judgment: October 23, 2026
Appearances: Senior Advocate S. Sreekumar with P. Martin Jose, P. Prijith, Thomas P. Kuruvilla, Ajay Ben Jose, Manjunath Menon, Harikrishnan S., Anavadya Sanil Kumar, Anjali Krishna, Adarsh V. Manoj and Abhinav P.S., for the petitioner; Shajna M., Standing Counsel, for the respondents