“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. A lawyer’s duty extends beyond the client to the court, to the administration of justice and to society at large,” the court said on June 5.
The matter is scheduled to be taken up again on June 19.
Justices J Nisha Banu and Shoba Annamma Eapen of the Kerala High Court expressed their displeasure at the counsel’s failure to advise and restrain the client. (Image enhanced using AI)
Deeply disturbed us
- Today’s untoward incident in the court hall has deeply disturbed us, especially since there was a specific direction exempting the respondent father from personal appearance.
- The message that the father was present and waiting was conveyed to the child with ulterior motives.
- It was also incumbent upon the counsel concerned to advise the client appropriately.
- We also express our displeasure at the counsel’s failure to advise and restrain the client.
- On enquiry, we are also informed by the security personnel of this court that the respondent/father was present in the court premises in the morning and he was waiting in the facilitation centre, but the permission to enter the court building was denied.
- 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.
- This interim order is being reported to remind the members of the Bar, the oath taken on the day of enrolment, to bear true faith and allegiance and to maintain the respect due to courts by upholding the ethical duties and moral values of the profession.
Court says child being traumatised by parents’ dispute
The case revolves around a six-year-old boy caught in a prolonged custody battle between his parents.
At the very beginning of its order, the high court remarked that it was dealing with “a case of a 6-year-old boy child, being traumatised by the matrimonial dispute between his parents.”
The mother had approached the high court challenging a family court order governing interim custody arrangements.
The dispute had already reached the high court several times. On March 16, the court directed both parents to appear along with the child.
However, the father failed to produce the child on the scheduled date, resulting in further directions from the court.
The child was eventually produced before the bench on April 1.
Summer custody arrangement led to fresh litigation
On April 1, the court interacted with both parents and the child but decided not to interfere with the family court’s custody arrangement because the school academic year was still underway.
The family court had directed that custody remain with the father during the school term while granting the mother custody during vacations, including summer holidays. It had also permitted the mother to interact with the child through video calls on specified days.
The high court directed the father to strictly comply with the arrangement and ordered authorities from the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA), to supervise the transfer of custody to the mother during the summer break.
According to the court, handing over the child eventually required “great effort” by the DLSA before custody was finally transferred to the mother on April 7.
The father later sought modification of those interim orders, but the request was rejected. When the case was taken up again on May 22, it was reported that the child was staying happily with his mother.
Judges wanted to speak to child alone
The matter came up again before the bench on June 4 and June 5.
This time, the judges specifically exempted the father from appearing in person because they wanted to interact with the child independently and understand his thoughts without the influence of either parent.
When the child first arrived at court on June 5, he appeared energetic and cheerful.
However, the atmosphere changed dramatically when he was called into the judges’ chambers for a private interaction.
The bench recorded that the child tightly held on to his mother’s hand and refused to let her leave.
The judges then learned that an incident had taken place inside the courtroom shortly before the interaction.
Unidentified lawyer allegedly approached child
According to the court order, a junior advocate accompanying the mother informed the judges that while the mother and child were seated in the last row of the courtroom, an unidentified male lawyer walked up to the child and spoke to him.
The lawyer allegedly told the child in Malayalam words that translated to: “Are you not Manu? Father is waiting down.”
When questioned about the remark, the lawyer allegedly left the courtroom without responding and hurried away.
The court noted that the child, who had been comfortable with his mother moments earlier, became frightened and disturbed after the encounter.
“Due to this unexpected incident, we could not interact with the child,” the bench recorded, noting that the child appeared worried and fearful.
CCTV footage examined
The judges subsequently examined recordings from the court’s video-conferencing platform and CCTV footage from the court corridor.
The footage, according to the order, confirmed that an unidentified lawyer entered the courtroom, approached the child seated at the back, spoke to him and then quickly exited before taking the escalator to another floor.
The footage also showed the junior advocate immediately leaving in an attempt to trace him.
The bench said it was convinced that the interaction had occurred.
The judges also learned from security personnel that the father had been present within the high court premises and was waiting at the facilitation centre that morning.
However, he had not been permitted to enter the court building because he had been exempted from appearing before the bench that day.
Child remains with mother
One of the immediate consequences of the incident was the court’s decision regarding custody.
Although custody was due to be handed back to the father under earlier directions, the bench decided that the child should continue with the mother for the time being.
The judges said the boy’s visible emotional distress, trauma and restlessness made it inappropriate to alter the arrangement immediately.
The court also referred to an earlier judgment in related proceedings where it had observed that the child appeared comfortable and playful with his mother but became apprehensive when the father entered the room.
Child support lawyer appointed
Concerned about the child’s welfare, the high court appointed Advocate Tanuja Roshan, a Child Support Lawyer under the Child Legal Assistance Program (CLAP) of the Kerala State Legal Services Authority.
She has been directed to interact with the child and, if possible, both parents and submit a report to the court regarding the child’s psychological condition and welfare.
Search launched for lawyer
The bench directed the high court registry to preserve all relevant CCTV footage and courtroom video recordings from June 5.
It also ordered officials to identify the lawyer who approached the child and report back immediately.
The registry has been authorised to seek assistance from the Kerala High Court Advocates’ Association, the Bar Council of Kerala, and other organisations to trace the lawyer.
Mediation scheduled
In a bid to resolve the underlying dispute, the Kerala High Court referred the parents to mediation after both sides expressed willingness to explore a settlement.
The parties have been directed to appear before the mediation centre attached to the high court on June 15.
Senior Mediator Sally Thomas Chacko has been appointed to facilitate discussions.
The Kerala High Court said that the lawyer, who unauthorisedly approached the child in the court hall, has done great injustice to the court as well as to the minor child. (Image generated using AI) 
Justices J Nisha Banu and Shoba Annamma Eapen of the Kerala High Court expressed their displeasure at the counsel’s failure to advise and restrain the client. (Image enhanced using AI)
Share
