Case Name: Suo Motu W.P.(C) based on Kerala High Court Advocates’ Association
[Case Number: W.P.(C). NO.32952 OF 2024]
[Date: Tuesday, the Nineteenth Day of August, Two Thousand and Twenty-Five]
[Quorum: Dr. A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, J. & Jobin Sebastian, J.]
Facts of the case
-
- This is a public interest litigation, which was initiated as a Suo Moto case by the High Court of Kerala based on the letter dated 10.09.2024 from the Kerala High Court’s Advocates Association reporting a dispute between an Advocate and Police Officials within the premises of the Judicial First-Class Magistrate Court of Ramana Kary, a place in Alapuzha District.
- Taking Judicial Notice of the increasing number of these incidents in Kerala, the High Court of the state recognised the need for a comprehensive guideline to deal with future conflicts between the legal professionals and the law enforcement officers, if any.
- The High Court directed the Home Secretary and the D.G. of Police to submit a complete list of orders and circulars that regulate police conduct during the court sessions.
- In response, the State Police Chief filed an affidavit stating that no particular document or circular had ever been issued to instruct officers on proper behaviour during judicial hours. Consequently, the court required the creation of a Model Code of Etiquette and Conduct.
- A Model Code was developed, the resulting Model Code addresses three principal areas: “Etiquette Required of Police Officers”, “Expected Conduct of the Public and Court Users toward Police Officers” and “Media Responsibilities with Respect to Reporting on Police Activities”.
Issues Involved
- Are specific guidelines necessary to regulate the conduct of police personnel within court premises beyond already existing statutory provisions?
- What is “court premises” for the purpose of regulating police actions and arrests?
- Is prior judicial permission a mandatory condition for all police to arrest within court premises?
Legal Provisions Invoked
- Section 29 (1) of the Kerala Police Act.
- Section 148 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha.
- Section 43 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha.
- Sections 35 to 62 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha.
- Sections 34 to 44 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha.
- Section 173 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha.
Submissions by the Stakeholder and their Analysis
- Response of the State Police Chief
- The State Police Chief submitted a detailed report, analysing suggestions from a number of stakeholders, including the Bar Council of Kerala, Kerala High Court Advocates’ Association, and Director General of Prosecution.
- The main issues that were raised are the practical difficulties in requiring judicial approval for all arrests in court premises, particularly in emergency situations involving violence or cognizable offences.
- The police in the report emphasised that maintaining confidentiality in operations and the shared nature of many court premises with other public offices, and the possible implementation of blanket restrictions would pose significant operational challenges while discharging their duties.
- Three feasible forms were recommended, which include requiring judicial permission for arrests within court halls except in emergency situations, establishing permanent dialogue channels between bar and police, and guaranteeing strict action against unjustified assault or verbal abuse by either party.
- Committee recommendations
- An expert committee consisting of the Advocate General, Director General of Prosecution, President of Kerala High Court Advocates’ Association, and Senior Advocates Sri. S.Sreekumar and Sri. Santhosh Mathew was tasked to review and refine the guidelines given by the Court.
- The Committee’s tasks and agenda focused on balancing the legitimate concerns of both legal professionals and law enforcement officers while guaranteeing effective administration of justice.
Analysis and Reasoning of the Court
- Defining what is meant by “Court Premises”
The Court gave clarity by defining “court premises” to include not just courtrooms, but all lands, buildings and structures (except residential quarters) used in connection with court proceedings during notified working hours or till the session of the court. This definition talks about the practical reality that many courts share premises with other public offices, providing clear boundaries for the application of special policies.
- Balanced Approach to Police Power
The court acknowledged that while there are rules within court buildings that are vital, relevant existing laws already create a firm framework for police behaviour. This approach appreciates that many judicial facilities are also shared with other government and public service offices. The judgment tries to bring about a balance between protecting the dignity of legal professionals and maintaining the operational effectiveness of the police personnel in emergency situations.
Final Guidelines by the Court
- Protocol for arrest within the Court Premises
- While the court is in session, if a person is to be arrested or detained in court premises, there is a set of standards or procedures to be followed by the police. Unless it’s a genuine emergency, the police are expected to inform the presiding judge of that court beforehand. This is a matter of respect for the court’s environment and authority.
- Furthermore, a special protection is in place for individuals who come to court to surrender themselves for any alleged offence. It does not matter if they come alone or with their lawyer; the police cannot arrest them on the spot. It is mandatory that they must first get permission from the judge in charge.
- The Court also gave room for some exceptions for genuine emergencies. If officers see a serious crime about to unfold inside the courtroom or within the premises of the court, or if they recognise someone who has been avoiding arrest on a long-standing warrant, they’re allowed to step in right away and use the force needed to make the arrest. However, they are also mandated to inform the presiding judge as soon as the arrest is made of the situation which led to the arrest.
- Two-Tier Grievance Redressal Mechanism
- A State-Level Committee comprising of Advocate General of the State, the Director General of Police, three members nominated by the High Court Bar Association, including its President, the Superintendent of Police of the concerned area (or a higher-ranking officer if allegations are against the SP), President of the Bar Association to which the complainant-advocate belongs.
- A District-Level Committee comprising the Principal District Judge or nominated Judicial Officer, District Police Chief, District Government Pleader, President of the relevant Bar Association and the Member nominated by the relevant Bar Association.
This mechanism puts an established redressal forum in place to properly address the grievances, and unresolved disputes can be referred to redressal from the state committee if the district committee is not able to arrive at a decision with regard to the dispute.
Significance of the Judgement
- This ruling is a step forward in getting two major parts of the justice system, that is the lawyers and the police, to work together more effectively. The court found a solid middle ground by laying out clear rules without ignoring the real-world challenges officers face on the job. In the end, it’s a balanced approach that protects the respect lawyers deserve while making sure of public safety.
- These guidelines, crafted after detailed consultation with all relevant parties, present a model that every High Court can either follow as is or tailor to suit its own jurisdiction. The ruling’s insistence on harmonising diverging interests without letting the rule of law weaken delivers sound direction for every comparable dispute that arises across the country.
Conclusion
The Kerala High Court’s ruling in this Suo Motu Public Interest Litigation is a landmark moment in lessening the recurrent friction between legal professionals and law enforcement officers in the court compounds. Rather than moving quickly to declare a set of punitive measures, the Bench engaged in patient dialogue with the Bar, the Bench and the police administration, weighing every practical concern before arriving at a considered middle path. The result is a set of guidelines that protect the dignity of advocates while also respecting the operational needs of law enforcement. By laying down well-defined procedures for arrests, clarifying what exactly counts as “court premises,” and putting in place an effective grievance redressal system, the Court has offered workable answers rather than just lofty principles.
This judgment positions Kerala as a forward-looking state in handling professional disputes within the justice system. The focus on dialogue, respect, and cooperation rather than rigid restrictions shows a mature approach to the delicate balance that is needed to keep both professions working together smoothly.
PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime Legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.
WRITTEN BY YANA S JACOB
