Kerala High Court Directs Probe To Identify Lawyer Who Caused Distress To Child In Court Hall

A Division Bench comprising Justice J. Nisha Banu and Justice Shoba Annamma Eapen passed the order in an ongoing custody dispute between estranged parents.

"The lawyer, who unauthorisedly approached the child in the court hall and showed the courage to convey the message to the child about the arrival of the father, has done great injustice to the court as well as to the minor child," the Bench observed.

The High Court recounted that it had previously directed the father to produce the child before the court after he failed to comply with an earlier order. Subsequently, the child was handed over to the mother for vacation custody with the assistance of the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA), Kozhikode.

The respondent-father had filed a petition seeking modification of the interim orders and the Court thus directed the petitioner to produce the child before the Court to interact with the child.

On Friday, when the Bench sought to interact with the child independently, the child initially appeared energetic and happy but became visibly distressed when brought into the judges' chambers.

The court was informed by a junior advocate representing the mother that an unidentified lawyer had approached the child in the courtroom and allegedly told him that his father was waiting downstairs. The lawyer reportedly left immediately when questioned. Following the encounter, the child became frightened and reluctant to separate from his mother.

The Bench noted that, because of the child's emotional state, it was unable to conduct the intended interaction and directed the mother to leave the court premises with the child

After reviewing video conferencing recordings and CCTV footage, the court stated that it was satisfied that an unidentified lawyer had entered the courtroom, spoken to the child seated in the last row, and then hurriedly left the area.

The Bench further recorded that the father, who had been exempted from personal appearance, was nevertheless present within the court premises and waiting in the facilitation centre, although he was denied permission to enter the court building.

The court said that the message conveyed to the child appeared to have been delivered with "ulterior motives." It also emphasized the duty of lawyers as officers of the court to uphold justice and ethical standards.

“A lawyer's duty extends beyond the client to the court, to the administration of justice and to the society at large. As an officer of the court and a guardian of the Rule of Law, a lawyer must uphold the constitution of India, assist in the dispensation of justice and ensure that legal expertise is not employed to perpetuate illegality or injustice. The profession demands a commitment to the public good. But for the said incident, the child would have remained comfortable, and we could have interacted with him to arrive at a proper conclusion.” Court added.

The court said the order was intended to remind members of the Bar of their ethical obligations and the oath they take upon enrolment.

Taking note of the child's emotional trauma and distress following the incident, the Bench held that it would be appropriate to continue interim custody with the mother for the time being.

The court also referred to an earlier judgment in related proceedings, where it had recorded that the child appeared comfortable with the mother but became apprehensive when the father entered the chambers.

The Registry was also directed to preserve the courtroom video recordings and CCTV footage and identify the lawyer involved, with assistance from the Kerala High Court Advocates' Association, the Bar Council of Kerala, or other relevant bodies.

The matter is scheduled for further consideration on June 19, 2026

Case Title: Sreedhanya Bhasakaran c Balakrishnan. V.S

Case No: OP(FC) 170/ 2026

Counsel for Petitioner: Nirmal.S, Veena Haru, Varun Muraleedharan, Merin Jose, Lamiya Shanavaz

Counsel for Respondent: V.K. Remasmrithi