"Lawyer’s Duty Extends Beyond Client": Kerala High Court Condemns Courtroom Interference By Advocate Who Unauthorizedly Approached 6-year-old Child

Expressing deep anguish over a highly deplorable incident inside the court hall where an unidentified male advocate unauthorizedly approached a six-year-old child to intimidate him about his father's presence downstairs, the Kerala High Court strongly condemned the breach of professional ethics and granted interim custody of the minor to the petitioner-mother.

Recognizing the severe psychological trauma and emotional distress inflicted upon the child by this unexpected courtroom interference, the Court suspended the planned custody transition, appointed a specialized Child Support Lawyer under the Child Legal Assistance Program (CLAP) to evaluate the family dynamics, and ordered the high court administration to preserve all digital video and CCTV recordings to identify and report the errant legal practitioner immediately.

The Division Bench of Justice Nisha J Banu and Justice Shobha Annama Epen observed, "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 the society at large. 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."

Advocate Nirmal S. appeared for the Petitioner, while Advocate V.K. Remasmrithi appeared for the Respondents.

Brief Facts of the Case

The petitioner (wife/mother) approached the Court by way of an Original Petition under the Family Court jurisdiction, challenging an interim order passed by the Family Court, Kozhikode, concerning the temporary custody of her six-year-old minor son. The roots of the dispute lay in a bitter matrimonial grievance pending between the petitioner and the respondent (husband/father) before the lower court, which had resulted in severe emotional distress for the young child.

The Family Court had initially ordered that the regular custody of the minor child would remain with the respondent-father, while granting the petitioner-mother extensive visitation and temporary custody during all institutional vacations, including the entire summer vacation.

Pursuant to the interim directions of the Court, the physical custody of the minor child was eventually handed over to the petitioner-mother for the duration of the summer recess, following strenuous efforts and intervention by the Secretary of the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA), Kozhikode.

Contentions of the Parties

The Petitioner-Mother contended that the minor child was deeply attached to her, happy in her company, and required her care. On the day of the scheduled interaction with the Bench, the petitioner’s counsel further brought to the Court's notice an untoward incident wherein an unidentified advocate unauthorizedly approached the minor child inside the courtroom to convey a distressful message, thereby severely frightening the infant.

The Respondent-Father actively resisted the modification of the initial custody arrangements. Through his learned counsel, the respondent moved a modification petition during the vacation session to alter the Court's interim directions, which was subsequently declined. Upon the re-opening of the matter, the respondent prayed for the dispute to be referred to the Mediation Centre attached to the Court in view of the fast-approaching re-opening date of the child's academic session.

Observations of the Court

The High Court observed with great anguish that the minor child had been profoundly traumatized and unsettled by the ongoing matrimonial warfare between the parents. The Court noted that during an earlier interaction, the child was entirely comfortable and playful with the mother, but grew visibly apprehensive and withdrawn the moment the father entered the room.

The Court took serious exception to a highly deplorable incident inside the court hall, where an unidentified male advocate breached professional ethics by approaching the minor child to covertly inform him that his father was waiting downstairs. The Court observed that this act was committed with ulterior motives to sabotage the scheduled judicial interaction, especially since the respondent-father had been explicitly exempted from personal appearance on that day.

The Court strongly condemned the conduct of the concerned lawyer, observing that an advocate is primarily an officer of the Court and a guardian of the Rule of Law, whose duty extends beyond the narrow interests of a client to the broader administration of justice and public good. The Court remarked that the unauthorized intervention did a great injustice to the cause of equity and to the psychological well-being of the minor.

In view of the sudden emotional distress, restlessness, and trauma manifested by the child following the said courtroom incident, the High Court observed that it would be in the paramount interest and welfare of the minor to grant his interim custody to the petitioner-mother for the time being.

The Court said, "Having regard to the psychological trauma and discomfort caused to the child, Adv.Thanuja Roshan, Child Support Lawyer (CSL) under the Child Legal Assistance Program (CLAP) of the KeLSA is appointed to interact with the child and, if possible, with the parents, and submit a report to this Court. The Registry is directed to show the name of Adv.Tanuja Roshan in the cause list and shall serve copies of this original petition and the orders passed in this case to the CLAP lawyer, to enable her to file a report."

Consequently, the Court directed the Registry to preserve the CCTV and digital video recordings of the court corridor to identify the errant advocate with the assistance of the Bar Council and the Advocates’ Association.

Cause Title: Sreedhanya Bhaskaran v. Balakrishnan VS & Anr [OP (FC) NO. 170 OF 2026(R)]

Appearances:

Petitioner: Advocate Nirmal S., Advocate Veena Hari, Advocate Varun Muraleedharan, Advocate Merin Jose, Advocate Lamiya Shanavaz.

Respondent: Advocate V.K. Remasmrithi.

Click here to read/download the Order