Alarming If She Is An Advocate: Kerala High Court Pulls Up Woman For Misbehaviour In Court And Casting Aspersion On Judges

The Kerala High Court while pulling up a woman appearing in-person before it for misbehaviour, flouting rules and casting aspersion on Judges remarked that it will be 'alarming' if she is an Advocate as claimed by her.

The Court was considering a Writ Petition against a judgement of the Family Court through which it granted divorce to the husband from her.

The Division Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice MB Snehalatha observed, "As an epilogue, assuming the petitioner is an Advocate — as she claims — we find it alarming for the profession that she appears oblivious of the most basic and rudimentary concepts that an Advocate cannot appear party in person in professional robes; or that Article 32 of the Constitution cannot be invoked before a High Court. Add to this, her deliberately unrestrained and unbridled deportment, in total and absolute breach of decorum, propriety and decency, imperative in a Court, makes us suspect strongly if she is an Advocate; and if she really is, how she can be allowed to enjoy the privilege to practice law."

The Petitioner appearing in person, claimed to be an Advocate and initially appeared in full professional robes to represent herself. The Bench intimated her that the same was impermissible and she rudely rebuked it, saying that no one can force her to remove her robes. She insisted that, she being an Advocate, is entitled to wear her gown even when arguing for herself; and insinuated that the Bench is refusing to hear her wearing her gown with “evil thoughts”. The Bench did not respond to that, exercising restraint and kept the matter passed over for ten minutes, to diffuse the baffling situation that the Petitioner was attempting to create.

At this time, a few right-thinking Advocates at the Bar intervened; and acceding to their advice, the Petitioner removed her Advocate’s gown - though retaining her band, and began her address.

The Court was unimpressed with the arguments made, but couldn't reason with the Petitioner as she refused to listen, raising her voice and making her submissions.

The Court was also amazed at the fact that despite claiming to be sane, the Petitioner alleged that the judgment and decree of the Family Court is incompetent since it has been issued against “an insane defendant” (referring to herself), without an enquiry.

"Apart from the fact that no Court can be asked to conduct an enquiry when the party refuses or fails to appear, it is also undoubted that if one is to accept this contention, then the petitioner cannot maintain this Writ Petition either, for the very same reason. But, before this Court, she says she is without any cognitive incapacity and does not seek any enquiry. She is clearly blowing hot and cold, in a rather confused tenor", the Court observed.

It approved of the Family Court's decision to issue the divorce decree ex-parte solely based on the evidence tendered by the Husband, since the Petitioner remained absent from hearings.

When the Court stayed the defects as detected by the Registry, the Petitioner began to speak intemperately, imputing the Bench of not knowing the law and being “undeserving” judges. She even made an obnoxious and perverse statement that the Bench is refusing to hear her wearing her robes, because it wants her body to be exposed.

The Court expressed its shock and petrification and urged the Bar Council and the Bar Association concerned to examine, lest the profession lose its nobility by the actions of a deviant few.

Cause Title: XXX v. YYY (2025:IO:KER:27)

Click here to read/ download Order