While dismissing a bunch of cases citing non-appearance of counsel, the Kerala High Court has observed that the call by lawyers to boycott courts on an issue concerning the enhancement of court fees by the State government cannot be seen as anything but illegal and preposterous.

The High Court took note of the en masse absence of counsel which was probably on account of a call for boycott by the Kerala High Court Advocates' Association (KHCAA).

The Division Bench comprising Justice A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Easwaran S. asserted, “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.”

The Bench referred to a copy of a letter written by the President of the Kerala High Court Advocates' Association to the Chief Justice on April 8, 2025, informing him of the call for a pen-down protest by lawyers. “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”, the Bench said.

The Kerala High Court Advocates Association (KHCAA) has also filed a Writ Petition (PIL) under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the increase in the Court Fees in Kerala.

“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”, the Bench stated. Reference was also made to the judgments in Ex Capt. Harish Uppal v. Union of India and Another (2003) and Krishnakant Tamrakar v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2018) where strikes have been held to be in violation of law, and it has been observed that lawyers have no right to go on strike or give a call for boycott.

“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”, the Bench said while dismissing the cases 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.

Cause Title: Jimmy Elias v. Smt. Elizabeth Jasmine & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:30855)

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocates E.M. Murugan, K.R. Lekshmi, P.R. Prateesh, P. Rakesh (Vaikom), Nileena V.P.

Click here to read/download Order


Justice AK Jayasankaran NambiarJustice Easwaran S.Kerala High Court

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.