KOCHI, APRIL11 2025 — In a strong rebuke against the collective boycott of courts by advocates, the Kerala High Court has observed that a lawyers’ strike over the issue of enhancement of court fees by the State government is nothing short of “illegal and preposterous.” The Court made the remarks while dismissing several cases due to non-appearance of counsel on the date of hearing.
A Division Bench comprising Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Easwaran S. criticized the call for a pen-down protest by the Kerala High Court Advocates’ Association (KHCAA), terming it an affront to the legal process.
“Letters addressed by an Association of Advocates to the Chief Justice of the High Court cannot take the form of gratuitous sermons interspersed with veiled threats. Further, the call to lawyers to boycott courts on an issue concerning enhancement of court fees by the State government cannot be seen as anything but illegal and preposterous. This is more so when we are given to understand that a Public Interest Litigation on the same issue was moved, and is currently pending consideration, before the Chief Justice’s Court.”
BACKGROUND OF THE BOYCOTT AND COURT’S OBSERVATIONS
The observations came in the context of an en masse absence of advocates, believed to be in response to the KHCAA’s April 8 letter to the Chief Justice, announcing a pen-down strike over the hike in court fees. The Association has also filed a Writ Petition (PIL) under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenging the government’s decision.
Referring to the contents of the KHCAA letter, the Bench said:
“While the letter in itself is distasteful as regards its contents, it also manifests a serious breach of the decorum that is expected to be maintained in this hallowed institution.”
“As Judges we cannot be party to such calls for boycott that are antithetical to the concept of justice dispensation and have been declared as illegal by the Supreme Court on many an occasion.”
CITING SUPREME COURT PRECEDENTS ON STRIKES
The Bench invoked binding precedents from the Supreme Court in Ex Capt. Harish Uppal v. Union of India & Another (2003) and Krishnakant Tamrakar v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2018), reiterating that lawyers have no right to strike or boycott court proceedings.
“In the light of the above declaration of the law, we cannot find it in ourselves to condone instances of non-representation of the cases listed before us today.”
DISMISSALS WITH LIBERTY TO RESTORE
While dismissing the pending cases due to non-representation, the High Court clarified that litigants may seek restoration:
“The cases are dismissed without prejudice to the right of the litigant to seek restoration of the same within one month on showing sufficient cause for the non-representation.”
- CASE DETAILS
- Cause Title: Jimmy Elias v. Smt. Elizabeth Jasmine & Ors.
- Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:30855
- Bench: Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Easwaran S.
- Petitioner’s Counsel: Advocates E.M. Murugan, K.R. Lekshmi, P.R. Prateesh, P. Rakesh (Vaikom), Nileena V.P.
