The Kerala High Court expressed deep shock after a woman litigant, claiming to be a lawyer, made outrageous remarks against the judges during her hearing. The Bench said her statements breached all norms of civility and were deeply perverse.
The Kerala High Court expressed its astonishment after a litigant, who claimed to be a lawyer and appeared in person for her case, made bizarre allegations against the judges.
She accused them of harboring evil thoughts and being undeserving, among other unusual comments.
A Division Bench consisting of Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice MB Snehalatha was taken aback by the petitioner’s conduct, which included disrespectful remarks directed at the judges during the hearing.
The Court noted that the petitioner appeared in legal attire, even though lawyers typically are not allowed to wear such clothing when arguing personal cases. Consequently, the judges informed her that she could not argue while dressed as an advocate.
To their surprise, the petitioner retorted, accusing the judges of having “evil thoughts” and implying they wanted her to “expose herself” to the Court.
The judges mentioned that they initially chose to remain calm and postponed the case for a later time to alleviate the perplexing situation the petitioner was attempting to create.
During this intermission, other advocates stepped in to talk to her, and she eventually removed her gown but insisted on keeping the lawyer’s band.
When the case resumed, she continued to argue in a confrontational manner. Eventually, when she sensed that a favorable ruling was unlikely, she claimed the judges were ignorant of the law.
The Court remarked,
“Seeing our opinion, the petitioner began to speak intemperately, imputing us of not knowing the law and being ‘undeserving’ judges. She even made an obnoxious and perverse statement that the Bench is refusing to hear her wearing her robes, because it wants her body to be exposed. We are not reproducing her exact words, since it will surely breach all norms of civility; but we were shocked and petrified, to say the least,”
The entire incident left the Bench disturbed, but they chose not to take immediate action against the petitioner.
The Court stated,
“Abhorrent and reprehensible as it surely is, we choose not to take cognizance of the petitioner’s behaviour; but record that we are aghast that an Advocate – if she indeed is one – has stooped so low. We leave it there!”
The judges implied that the Bar Council or Bar Association should investigate the petitioner’s behavior, assuming she is indeed a lawyer.
The Court remarked,
“Assuming the petitioner is an Advocate as she claims we find it alarming for the profession that she appears oblivious of the most basic and rudimentary concepts that an Advocate cannot appear party in person in professional robes; or that Article 32 of the Constitution cannot be invoked before a High Court. Add to this, her deliberately unrestrained and unbridled deportment, in total and absolute breach of decorum, propriety and decency, imperative in a Court, makes us suspect strongly if she is an Advocate; and if she really is, how she can be allowed to enjoy the privilege to practice law. This is for the Bar Council and the Bar Association concerned to examine, lest the profession lose its nobility by the actions of a deviant few,”
The petitioner had challenged a family court order that allowed her husband to proceed with a divorce. She filed her challenge as a writ petition, but the Court’s Registry refused to number it, noting it was not maintainable since an appeal under the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) should have been filed instead.
She declined to rectify this issue, leading the matter to be brought before the Court to determine the maintainability of the writ petition.
The High Court concurred with the Registry’s view that the writ petition was not maintainable. It also pointed out contradictions in some of her submissions and noted that she failed to explain a three-year delay in contesting the 2022 divorce decree.
Ultimately, the Court dismissed her petition as unmaintainable but indicated that she could still file an appropriate appeal in accordance with the law.
Read Attachment