Kerala High Court takes exception to lawyers' protest in Kottayam; says bar being selective

The Kerala High Court on Friday expressed concerns over the protests staged by lawyers that halted proceedings in a magistrate court in Kerala's Kottayam district [N Prakash v The High Court of Kerala & Ors.]..On Thursday, sloganeering lawyers had barged into the courtroom of Chief Judicial Magistrate Viveeja Sethumohan and hurled abuses at her, protesting against the registration of a first information report against a lawyer.Bar and Bench had reported about the incident. .Justice Devan Ramachandran today questioned why the bar was selectively interfering in such unnecessary matters.“What is the bar doing? For all the unnecessary things, the bar is interfering. Yesterday I saw the issue in Kottayam. Why is the bar being selective? Where are we going? (there is) no meaning, “ Justice Ramachandran orally observed. .While acknowledging that he was uncertain about the particulars of the incident in Kottayam, Justice Ramachandran expressed concern and wondered how such incidents would affect the public perception of the legal community.“This is not because I am sad. I am just here for a few more years. There is a generation coming up. Nothing can be done to me. I was worried, very worried when I saw the Kottayam incident. I am not sure who is right, or who is wrong. What will the citizens think when they see all these actions?” he remarked. .These observations were made when the Court was considering a plea seeking initiation of contempt of court proceedings against another lawyer, advocate Sangeetha Lakshmana, for some posts she put up on Facebook criticizing Justice Ramachadnran.The judge said that he was not sure that the plea would be maintainable and explained that he had issued notice to the respondents only to be fair..However, he expressed disappointment at the manner in which some advocates criticize judges, especially since there is a system for raising concerns rather than taking all woes to social media. He also highlighted the judiciary's restraint in not responding to attacks from advocates.“The third respondent (Lakshmana) being a counsel can always criticize. From the time I joined, I have heard senior advocates criticizing senior advocates but in a beautiful way. There is a system unlike simply posting on Facebook. What do they expect; that judges should be transferred because of that? Who said we don’t like being transferred? It is not just one person, it has been constantly happening. Ask the association, if it is an association or it just (delivers) speeches. Just because advocates attack judges, we don’t do that to advocates. We don’t stoop so low,” Justice Ramachandran said. .He also pointed out that the fairness of court proceedings could be affected if the judges hearing a case are constantly abused.“You can criticize, and continue to criticize. From the time I joined, I knew the scrutiny, I would be subjected to. Should I hear a case in which I’m being abused, won't that affect its fairness?” said Justice Ramachandran..Upon request from the counsel before it, the Court ultimately decided to issue notice to the High Court and adjourned the matter for further consideration on November 29.