Kerala High Court Directs Administrative Side To Consider Lawyer's Plea To Give Additional Charge Of Kavaratti District Court To Ernakulam Court

The Kerala High Court on Thursday directed the High Court represented by its Registrar General to consider the representations filed by a practicing lawyer highlighting his grievances regarding giving additional charge of the District & Sessions Court, Kavaratti in Lakshadweep to the District & Sessions Court at Kozhikode instead of the one at Ernakulam. 

The Single Judge Bench of Justice PV. Kunhikrishnan issued the direction in a plea filed by Advocate Mohammed Salih P.M. 

"...I think this is a matter to be looked into by the 3rd respondent (High Court of Kerala). The petitioner already submitted Ext. P3 before the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent can look into this matter, in consultation with the Union of India and the Administrator, Union Territory of Lakshadweep, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner also," the Court ordered. 

The petitioner was aggrieved by the Order of the Kerala High Court through which District and Sessions Court, Kozhikode had been directed to hold full additional charge of District and Sessions Judge Kavaratti, until further orders. 

The petitioner submitted that it is a usual course to entrust the charge of District and Sessions Court, Kavaratti to District and Sessions Court, Kozhikode, when conveyances were easily available to Kozhikode from Lakshadweep.

However, the petitioner states that presently, the Lakshadweep Administration has stopped all ship services to Kozhikode and the natives are mainly relying on Ernakulam. It was added that almost all ship services from Lakshadweep are to Kochi port than Beypore port. The petitioner averred that it has thus become a herculean task for both Advocates and litigants to reach the District and Sessions Court, Kozhikode, since there are no transport facilities available from Lakshadweep to Kozhikode. The petitioner has thus submitted that easy access to justice for litigants, and right to practice profession for Advocates have been put to a hurdle.

It was added that although he had submitted a representation in this regard before the High Court, no redressal was provided.

The Court disposed of the case clarifying that the High Court would have to consider and take an appropriate decision on the representation by the petitioner within a period of 3 months.

The plea was moved through Advocates Ameer Salim, Adithya Kiran V.E., Anoop Sebastian, and Swathy Sudhir. 

Case Title: Adv. Mohammed Salih P.M. v. Union of India & Ors. 

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 324