HC directs registry to ‘trace’ lawyer who interacted with child in court without permission

Kochi: In an unusual development, the Kerala High Court on Friday directed the high court registry to identify and trace a lawyer who allegedly interacted with a six-year-old child who had appeared before the court in connection with a child custody case, purportedly on behalf of the child’s father, despite a direction from the bench prohibiting such interaction.

The bench of Justices Nisha Banu and Shoba Annamma Eapen further directed the registry to seek the assistance of the Kerala High Court Advocates’ Association, the Bar Council of Kerala, or any other relevant organization to identify the lawyer. The boy appeared before the court along with his mother, pursuant to an earlier direction requiring her to produce the child so that the bench could interact with him while deciding the custody dispute. In its previous order, the court had clarified that the father need not be present before the court on Friday.

When the matter was taken up in the morning, the bench directed that the child be brought to the chamber at 11:45am for an interaction. However, when he was called to the chamber, the child was reluctant to enter alone and appeared restless and emotionally distressed. Upon inquiring about the reason, the court was informed that while the boy was seated with his mother and counsel in the last row of the courtroom, an unidentified lawyer had approached him and told him that his father was waiting outside. When the mother’s counsel questioned the lawyer, the lawyer left the courtroom and took the escalator to the second floor.

Upon examining the recording of the courtroom proceedings and the CCTV footage, the court was satisfied that an unidentified lawyer had entered the courtroom and spoken to the child. The court was also informed by security personnel that the child’s father had been present on the court premises in the morning. Meanwhile, counsel for both the petitioner and the respondent stated that they were unaware of the identity of the lawyer concerned.

Taking serious note of the incident, the court expressed its deep displeasure over the incident. . The bench adjourned the petition to June 19 and directed the registry to submit a report.