Kerala High Court Imposes ₹1 Lakh Cost On Advocate For Filing 'Frivolous' Contempt Petition Against Judicial Officer, Opposing Counsel

The original case is a partition suit filed before the Additional Munsiff's Court, Kottayam. The contempt applicant-petitioner represented the defendants in the suit. They challenged an order of the Munsiff Court and the High Court ordered the Munsiff to decide the case afresh after considering the objections of the defendants in the suit.

An interlocutory application (I.A.) in the original suit was filed by the petitioners to call for a report of the Forensic Science Laboratory from the Judicial First Class Magistrate – I. After the High Court passed the order to re-consider the I.A., the parties filed a petition to amend the I.A. as they found the report was with the Chief Judicial Magistrate. This amendment was allowed.

The contempt-applicant alleged that the Munsiff committed contempt by allowing amendment of the petition. The petitioner referred to Shivashankara and another v H. P. Vedavyasa Char (2023) where it was observed that the court to which a case is remanded has to comply with the order of remand strictly; and acting contrary to the order of remand is contrary to law.

He submitted that the Munsiff should have strictly adhered to the order of High Court which does not allow the Munsiff to consider an application for amendment.

Justice C. Jayachandran rejected this argument saying that the trial court is bound to consider all interlocutory applications before it while deciding a case. Even if allowing the same can be considered to be contrary to the ratio laid down in Shivashankara (2023), it cannot be considered as contempt of court.

The Court heavily criticized the petitioner for making 'baseless, mischievous' and 'frivolous' argument against the opposite counsel.

“To hurl allegations of contempt against the lawyer appearing for the plaintiffs, as also, plaintiffs 1 and 3, to say the least, is grossly unbecoming, besides bereft of any bonafides or merits.”

The Court observed that the Supreme Court did not contemplate frivolous complaints when it held in S. K. Sarkar v Vinay Chandra Misra (1981) that a responsible member of the legal profession can apply to initiate contempt proceedings.

“The Honourable Supreme Court afforded a special advantageous position to a contempt being moved by a responsible member of the legal profession. Little would have the Honourable Supreme Court thought of a member of the profession stooping down to the extent, as exhibited in the instant facts.”

The Court noted that even his clients of the contempt-applicants were not made parties to the contempt proceedings even though the petitioner was just the counsel for the parties and not the party- in the concerned case.

The Court observed since the petitioner himself is a lawyer and he is represented by another lawyer, it cannot be said that he was ignorant of the law. The Court raised doubts about the bonafides of the petitioner. The Court contemplated whether the petitioner was not aware that the contempt proceedings would not lie against the petitioners and counsel of the petitioner of the partition suit and that there was no contempt by allowing the amendment petition. The Court held that the whole exercise can be considered only as an abuse of process of the Court.

“Being a member of the prestigious legal fraternity, the petitioner is expected to conduct himself assuming the onerous responsibility and sublime duty of a lawyer and in a manner befitting to the grace and nobility of the profession. However, this Court finds that he has abused his position and his knowledge of law with a frivolous, vexatious and mischievous intent to frighten/ discourage the respondents/ alleged contemnors herein.”

Thus the petitioner was directed to pay the amount to Kerala State Legal Services Authority within a month.

Counsel for the Petitioner: Advocates Vadakara V. V. N. Menon, N. S. Gopakumar

Case No: Con. Case (C) No 1937/ 2024

Case Title: P. M. Kurian v Deepa Mohanan and Others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 510