Shreya Gupta
On 9th April 2025, the Kerala High Court sternly criticised the lawyers’ strike called by the Kerala High Court Advocates’ Association (KHCAA) in protest against a proposed hike in court fees.
The Division Bench comprising Justice AK Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Easwaran S condemned the abstention from court work as both unethical and preposterous, especially since a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the same fee hike is already pending before the Chief Justice’s Bench. The Court proceeded to dismiss several matters listed before it due to the absence of advocates who had failed to appear on account of the boycott. Highlighting the illegality of the protest, the Bench emphasised that calling for a court boycott on a matter already under judicial consideration undermines the legal process.
Further, the Court expressed strong disapproval of a letter sent by the KHCAA President to the Chief Justice, describing it as distasteful and disrespectful and accusing it of containing veiled threats and unsolicited advice, thereby breaching institutional decorum. Particularly offensive to the Court was the letter’s suggestion that judges could utilise the strike day to write reserved judgments, implying a lack of judicial productivity. The protest stemmed from the implementation of the Kerala Finance Bill, 2025, which introduced the court fee hike effective from 1st April 2025, and which has also been challenged by the KHCAA through a pending PIL.
During proceedings, Government Pleaders informed the Bench that the widespread absence of lawyers was due to the strike. The Court, however, firmly stated that it bore no obligation to adjourn cases because of such protests and warned that office-bearers responsible could face contempt proceedings. It invoked past Supreme Court rulings—Ex-Capt Harish Uppal v Union of India (2003) and Krishnakant Tamrakar v State of Madhya Pradesh (2018)—to reinforce the impermissibility of court boycotts by lawyers. As a result, the Bench dismissed the unattended cases but granted litigants the liberty to file restoration applications within one month, provided they could show valid reasons for non-representation and readiness to argue their matters when restored.
Case Title: Jimmy Elias v Elizabeth Jasmine & ors. and other cases
Case Number: ARB.A NO. 14 OF 2025
Bench: Justice AK Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Easwaran S
Click here to access the order
Instagram: Click here.
LinkedIn: Click here.
For Collaboration and Business: info.desikaanoon@gmail.com