Litigants need not argue their case before court with tears and folded hands; judges are not Gods: Kerala High Court
Justice Kunhikrishnan said that even though a court of law is known as a temple of justice, there are no Gods on the bench requiring any obeisance from lawyers or litigants apart from maintenance of decorum.
The Kerala High Court observed that Judges are just doing their constitutional duties and litigants or lawyers are not required to argue before the court with folded hands.
Justice PV Kunhikrishnan made the observation after a litigant argued her case with with folded hands and tears in her eyes.
Justice Kunhikrishnan said that even though a court of law is known as a temple of justice, there are no Gods on the bench requiring any obeisance from lawyers or litigants apart from maintenance of decorum.
“First of all, no litigant or lawyer need to argue their case with folded hands before a court of law because it is their constitutional right to argue a case before a court of law. Usually the court of law is known as ‘temple of justice’. But there is no god sitting in the bench. The judges are doing their constitutional duties and obligations. But the litigants and lawyers should keep the decorum of the court while arguing the case,” the Court’s order stated.
The litigant, Ramla Kabeer, was before the court in person to quash a first information report (FIR) registered against her alleging offences punishable under Sections 294(b) (singing, reciting, or uttering obscene song or words in or near a public place), 506(i) (criminal intimidation) of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 120(o) of the Kerala Police Act.
The allegation was that Kabeer repeatedly telephoned the Circle Inspector of Police at North Police Station, Alappuzha and threatened him using abusive words.
Kabeer told the High Court that it was a false case that was foisted on her by the police. She said that she had filed a police complaint against a prayer hall being used in a manner that was causing noise pollution in the area. The circle inspector was directed to conduct an inspection and when Kabeer called him to know of the progress, the police officer verbally abused her over the phone, she alleged.
She then filed a complaint before the Police Complaints Authority as well as Inspector General of Police against the conduct of the circle inspector. She submitted that the case against her was a counter-case filed by the circle inspector.
After hearing the arguments and going through the final report, the Court took the prima facie view that the offences alleged were not made out. Therefore, it quashed the case against Kabeer.
The Court also opined that the FIR was a counterblast to the complaint filed by Kabeer and, therefore, ordered a departmental enquiry against the circle inspector.
