Aghast that an advocate stooped so low: Kerala HC shocked by petitioner-in-person's bizarre conduct

The Kerala High Court was recently left baffled after a litigant - who claimed to be a lawyer and appeared in person to argue her case personally - accused judges on the Bench of having "evil thoughts" and being "undeserving", among other odd comments. .A Division Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice MB Snehalatha expressed that it was shocked by the way the petitioner (litigant) behaved and made disrespectful remarks against the judges during the hearing.The Court recounted that the petitioner had appeared in advocates' attire, even though lawyers are not generally permitted to wear the lawyers' attire when they are arguing their personal cases. The Court, therefore, told the petitioner that it was not permissible for her to argue while she is in advocates' attire. Much to the shock of the judges, the petitioner then rebuked the judges for having "evil thoughts" and for wanting to make her "expose herself" to the Court. The judges recounted that they initially restrained themselves and passed over the case to some time later, "to diffuse the baffling situation that the petitioner was attempting to create.".At this point, some other advocates intervened and spoke to the woman, who reluctantly removed her gown but continued wearing a lawyer's band. When the case was taken up again, she continued arguing combatively, the Court said. Eventually, when the petitioner sensed that she was not going to get a favourable ruling, she alleged that the judges hearing the matter did not know the law."Sensing 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 Court remarked.The entire sequence of events left the Bench disturbed, but it refrained from directly ordering any action against the petitioner. "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 Court said..We are aghast that an Advocate – if she indeed is one - has stooped so low. We leave it there!Kerala High Court.It, however, hinted that the Bar Council or Bar Association should look into the behaviour of the petitioner, if she is indeed a lawyer."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 Court said. .The petitioner had challenged a family court order that had allowed her husband's plea for divorce. She had filed her challenge as a writ petition. However, the Court's Registry refused to number the petition, after noting that it was not maintainable since an appeal under the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) should have been filed instead. The petitioner refused to correct this defect, and the matter then reached the Court, so that it could take a call on whether the writ petition was maintainable. The High Court agreed with the Registry that the writ petition was not maintainable.It found some of her submissions to be contradictory as well. Among other grounds, the Court also pointed out that the petitioner had not explained a three-year delay in challenging the 2022 divorce decree.The Court, thus, refused to number her petition, noting that the petitioner, instead of filing a statutory appeal, had filed a writ petition under Article 32 (which is usually invoked for approaching the Supreme Court, not a High Court) of the Constitution seeking non-specific reliefs.The Court closed the petition as not maintainable but stated that the petitioner could still file a proper appeal according to law..[Read Order].Follow Bar and Bench channel on WhatsAppDownload the Bar and Bench Mobile app for instant access to the latest legal news.