Courts should not make unfounded assumptions against lawyers: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court recently observed that courts should refrain from making unfounded adverse assumptions against lawyers about their professional integrity [Chandra Mouli v State of Kerala]..Justice K Babu made the observation while quashing a trial court order that had required a lawyer to file an affidavit stating that he would not misuse a copy of a witness statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC).Justice Babu observed that lawyers are officers of the court and that courts should not leap to an assumption that they may carry out illegal acts in the discharge of their duties. "A lawyer appearing for a party in a proceeding is an officer of the Court. He is always expected to discharge his duties and responsibilities legally. A Court is not expected to form an apprehension without any foundation that the lawyer may do some illegal acts during the course of his profession," the May 27 order stated. .By way of background, a man was facing charges under several criminal laws, including the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. He sought a certified copy of the victim's statement recorded under Section 164 (recording of confessions and statements) of the CrPC.In response, the Fast Track Special Court (POCSO), Thrissur, passed an order directing the accused man's lawyer to submit an affidavit stating that the requested copy of the victim's statement would not be misused. This directive was challenged before the High Court by the accused man (petitioner). .The petitioner's counsel argued that the trial court's order was unwarranted and illegal.He highlighted that the petitioner had a statutory right under Section 207 (supply of copy of police report and other documents to an accused) of the CrPC to obtain all the relevant documents, including witness statements. The counsel pointed out that any misconduct by a lawyer could always be disciplined by the concerned Bar Council.He added that comprehensive legal safeguards already existed to protect victims of sexual offences from any misuse of their identity/ statements. In this regard, reliance was placed on the Supreme Court's directions in the case of Nipun Saxena and Another v. Union of India and Others..The Court agreed that sufficient protection has been afforded to the victim through statutory provisions and Supreme Court directives. It proceeded to conclude that there was no need for the trial court to ask the petitioner's lawyer to submit an affidavit assuring that the victim's statement would not be misused. "I make it clear that there is not even a need to insist for such an affidavit by the accused himself," the Court added. The Court opined that issuing such orders against a lawyer, based on unfounded apprehensions, would interfere with the lawyer's right to practice law under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and the Advocates’ Act, 1961..Consequently, the High Court quashed the trial court's order and ordered it to provide the petitioner with the certified copy of the victim's statement..Advocates Renjith B Marar and Lakshmi N Kaimal represented the petitioner. Public Prosecutor MK Pushpalatha represented the State..[Read Order]