The Kerala High Court has reprimanded a lawyer for filing a contempt of court petition that made allegations against a judicial officer who presided over his case, as well as against the opposing parties and their counsel.
A single bench of Justice C Jayachandran observed that the lawyer’s intention in filing the petition was to intimidate and pressure both the judicial officer and the opposing side.
The judge stated, “The petitioner—supposedly a responsible member of the legal profession and an important stakeholder in the administration of justice—has descended to the level of making unfounded and reckless allegations of contempt, not only against a judicial officer but also against his counterpart representing the plaintiffs. This constitutes a clear deviation from the fraternity and comity expected within the legal profession.”
Such conduct, particularly from a member of the legal community, necessitates a stern response, the single judge emphasized. Consequently, the Court imposed a ₹1 lakh fine on the petitioner, to be paid to the Kerala State Legal Services Authority within one month.
The judgment was passed on a petition filed by advocate PM Kurian, who sought the initiation of contempt of court proceedings against the judicial officer presiding over a suit in which he appeared before the Additional Munsiff Court, Kottayam. Kurian also sought contempt proceedings against the opposing parties in the suit and their counsel.
Kurian had previously challenged two orders from the suit by appealing to the High Court. In one of these orders, the matter was remanded to the Munsiff Court for fresh consideration, while the Munsiff Court allowed the other side to amend their petition. Kurian argued that this amounted to contempt of court and alleged that the judicial officer had colluded with the opposing parties and their counsel.
After a thorough review, the Court determined that the case was a blatant abuse of the court’s process. It concluded that the actions of the judicial officer did not amount to contempt, and the allegations against the opposing parties and their counsel were not only meritless but also “grossly unbecoming.”
After finding the petition devoid of substance, the Court declined to issue notice to the respondents and dismissed it in limine. In its judgment, the Court also referenced the Supreme Court’s ruling in SK Sarkar v. Vinay Chandra Misra, which emphasized the significance of contempt petitions filed by lawyers.
