Kerala HC sends lawyer to jail for contempt on its Diamond Jubilee Day

KOCHI: The Kerala High Court on November 1st ordered a three-month jail term for a high court lawyer after initiating contempt proceedings against him. The order followed a spat between the judges and the lawyer over a petitioner’s direct appeal to the court to change his lawyer. Advocate CK Mohanan was sentenced to three months of simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs1,000 by a division bench of the court.The court later suspended the execution of the sentence for one month after the lawyer submitted that he wishes to file an appeal before the Supreme Court.
The incidents that led to initiation of contempt proceedings took place on October 24th when the petitioner in a habeas corpus case represented by Mohanan told the court in person that he does not wish to engage him any longer. As per the suo motu case registered by the high court, the lawyer “raised objection in a loud voice in the open court” when the petitioner’s statement was brought to his notice by the court. The lawyer had told the court that the petitioner had not approached him and that it is a private matter between his client and himself. He told the bench that courts should not encourage the ‘backdoor practice’ of clients approaching the court to change the counsel midway without approaching the concerned lawyer first. According to the case file, the court was of the opinion that the lawyer should have conceded to the client’s demand for change of lawyer with grace. But instead of upholding the traditions of the noble profession, the advocate had raised his voice even when an order was being dictated, the file said.
Further, the court said the lawyer never made an attempt to express regret or tender an apology for his misconduct.
The lawyer had sought two weeks to answer the contempt charges against him, stating that heavens will not fall if such time is granted, but the court held that it finds no justification for allowing it. While punishing the lawyer for contempt of court, the bench said he scandalised and lowered the authority of the court and also interfered with the due course of a judicial proceeding.