Advocate Commissioner Is Not A Job Or Employment, It Is A Privilege Given By Court: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court today observed that it ought to be considered an honour to be appointed as an advocate commissioner as opposed to merely being employed for monetary remuneration.

“Commissioner is not a job, it is not employment, it is a privilege given by the court” observed the court.

Justice Devan Ramachandran was hearing a plea moved by a lawyer practising in Kottayam whose name had been struck off the list of lawyers who could be appointed as commissioners merely because she asked for her allowance (batta) to be increased.

The petitioner was appointed as the advocate commissioner to take possession of the scheduled premises and surrendered the commission warrant following issues in the matter. The magistrate directed the petitioner to remit Rs. 2500 as the petitioner had only taken partial possession of the scheduled premises and further ordered that the name of the petitioner be struck off from the panel of commissioners.

While disposing of the matter, Justice Ramachandran remarked that “this is not an issue that should be now construed to be one between the bar and the bench, in fact, there can be no divide between these two in the functioning of the legal system”.

The court censured the petitioner's conduct in asking for a higher allowance and stated that “the young lawyer did not understand that when she was appointed as a commissioner, it was an honour that was given to her but she worked under the impression that she was entitled to charge as if it is a commercial quest by the amount of work she has completed and the number of hours she has invested”.

The court also pointed out the need for mentors for young members of the bar, and criticised the magistrate's actions, saying that the magistrate should have realized that “the mind of a young lawyer is like a turbulent sea on account of the vagaries and uncertainties that face every new entrant. It requires the commitment of both the bar and the bench for any person to continue in the profession".

“This is not charity, but an obligation on both sides because we want the best of both sides to continue in the profession and give succour to those who come to us seeking justice” concluded the court.

The plea was moved by Advocates Apoorva Ramkumar, V Ramkumar Nambiar, V John Sebastian Ralph, Vishu Chandran, Giridhar Krishna Kumar

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 163

Case Title: Greeshma Viji v. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kottayam

Case Number: WP(C) No. 8136 of 2024