'Bar Is Best Judge Of Judges': Kerala High Court Refrains From Acting Against Lawyer Over Allegations On Judge, Asks Bar Body To Decide

The Kerala High Court recently (January 21) passed an order asking the Kerala High Court Bar Association and the Bar Council of Kerala to decide whether the action of an advocate, who made baseless allegations against a sitting judge, would amount to professional misconduct. Justice C. Pratheep Kumar passed the order in a Criminal Revision Petition filed by a husband challenging the order of the appellate court in enhancing the maintenance awarded by the Magistrate to his wife and minor child to Rs. 25,000 each.The lawyer appearing for the husband had filed a memo dated 19.1.2026, relinquishing the Vakalath of the husband and raising very serious allegations against the bench.Since an allegation was raised against it, the Court refrained from entering into a probe and said that the propriety of making the allegations has to be decided by the Bar. The Court remarked:“Though this court called upon him (advocate) to argue the revision petition time and again, without utilising that opportunity, he has raised such a serious allegation against the judge, in person. When such a baseless allegation is raised against this court, it may not be fair on my part to probe into the matter, as no one shall be a judge in his own cause. I honestly believe that the Bar is the best judge of Judges. Therefore, I am leaving this matter to the Bar (as well as to the Bar Council) to decide on the propriety of making those allegations by Advocate…and whether or not it amounts to professional misconduct.”In July 2025, a coordinate bench had initially stayed the appellate court's order subject to deposit of the entire arrears of maintenance found by the Magistrate one year. The High Court had then directed that the entire amount be deposited before the Magistrate and that the same can be disbursed subject to the result of the present plea.Later, another order was passed by the present bench directing the Magistrate to disburse 50% of the amount, i.e., the maintenance towards the minor child, who was suffering from various ailments, and to keep the balance amount until further orders. The Court had noted in the order that the husband's main grievance was regarding the maintenance payable to the wife on the ground that the marriage was already dissolved and also that this was strongly disputed by the wife. Considering the circumstances, it had ordered the husband to pay the monthly maintenance only to the child including arrears, until further orders.Following this order, the lawyer representing the husband had relinquished the vakalath in the case and in the relinquishment memo, he had stated: “My accountability to the client directs me not to proceed with this matter with a bench that lost judicial propriety and has least concern for natural justice. Hence, I hereby relinquish my Vakalath leaving this bench to do as it warranted in the facts and circumstances of this case.”The Court remarked that the afore order directing the husband to pay maintenance to his minor child was passed in the presence of an associate of the afore advocate and the associate had insisted on adjourning the matter after vacation while the wife's/child's counsel had pressed for urgent relief.On the same day of the afore order, while considering another case, the husband's counsel had appeared and submitted that the Court passed the order in spite of his associate's repeated requests to pass over the matter. The Court then posted the matter to the next working day.In the meanwhile, an interim application was filed by the husband praying for recalling the order and in the affidavit filed with the same, it was claimed that a submission was made to pass over the matter. The associate lawyer later filed an affidavit stating that she made repeated submission to pass over the matter but the Court went ahead and heard the same and passed the order.Thereafter, the Court verified the recorded proceedings of the said date and ensured that no submission was made by the associate to pass over the matter as sworn to in her affidavit. When she was warned about the consequences of filing a false affidavit, she filed another affidavit stating that since she was in a panic, she could not say for certain whether she made such a submission before the Court.In between, a chance was given to the argue the case along with the interim application but the lawyer insisted on recalling the order before arguing the case. When the request was not permitted, the lawyer spoke in a loud voice that he had lost confidence of the Court and that he was not prepared to argue before the present bench. Thereafter, he relinquished his vakalath.“From the conduct of the learned counsel…it appeared that he wanted to protract the revision petition, without paying interim maintenance to the respondents. The only endeavor of this court was to render justice to the maximum number of litigants, at the earliest. Now, a learned senior member of the Bar has raised a very serious allegation that this court...

'Bar Is Best Judge Of Judges': Kerala High Court Refrains From Acting Against Lawyer Over Allegations On Judge, Asks Bar Body To Decide

K. Salma Jennath

Tags