Kerala High Court Imposes ₹50K Cost On Litigant Appearing In Person For Threatening Judge
The Kerala High Court recently imposed Rs. 50,000 cost on a litigant, who was appearing as party-in-person, for threatening the single judge hearing his case by stating that he has filed a complaint against the judge before the President of India and other authorities.Referring to former CJI JS Khehar's opinion in the 2015 National Judicial Commission judgment Supreme Court...
The Kerala High Court recently imposed Rs. 50,000 cost on a litigant, who was appearing as party-in-person, for threatening the single judge hearing his case by stating that he has filed a complaint against the judge before the President of India and other authorities.
Referring to former CJI JS Khehar's opinion in the 2015 National Judicial Commission judgment Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association and Another v. Union of India , Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan in his order observed:
"I am confident that I am upholding the oath I have taken, and I am discharging my duty in accordance with the Constitution of India. When I have faith in it, I am not bothered about such threats. The petitioner is threatening this Court by stating that he approached the President of India and other authorities against me. I am least bothered about the complaint submitted by the petitioner before the authorities because I am exercising my judicial powers in accordance with the law and the Constitution of India".
At the outset the court in its order said while there is no bar on petitioner appearing in person, however such litigants should be familiar with the basics of courtroom decorum, and he should know the consequences for making unnecessary submissions even after a warning.
Earlier, on 08.07.2025, the same litigant was given a warning by the Court for attempting to engage in forum shopping by asking it to avoid his case. However, the person came before the same Court 10 days later and asked it to avoid his cases as a cost was imposed against him in another proceeding. He also told Justice Kunhikrishnan that he has filed a "complaint" against the judge before the "President of India and the Registrar General of the High Court".
"On 08.07.2025, this Court clearly stated that such submission made by the petitioner is contemptuous, and I restrained myself from taking any action against the petitioner because the petitioner is appearing in person, and he may not be aware of the decorum of a court of law and the submission to be made in a court of law. But the petitioner appeared again and made the same submission," the court noted.
The Court noted that the litigant has engaged in the same behaviour before other Benches as well. Taking note of a decision of a coordinate bench which had dismissed petitioner's plea with cost, wherein he had asked that bench to avoid his cases the court observed:
"This is the practice of the petitioner. Now the petitioner is also threatening this court, alleging that he filed a complaint against me," it noted.
It further observed:
“…A person threatening this Court, stating that he filed a complaint against the Judge, and the case should be avoided by that Judge, cannot be accepted at all. Since the petitioner is not ready to argue these cases, these cases are to be dismissed. Even after giving a warning to the petitioner on 08.07.2025 in the judgment, which is extracted above, the petitioner is continuing to disobey the orders. I am of the considered opinion that these writ petitions are to be dismissed with heavy costs.”
Thus, it dismissed the writ petitions and imposed a cost of Rs. 50,000 to be paid to the High Court Legal Services Authority.
Case No: WP(CRL.) No. 1150 of 2024
Case Title: Asif Azad v. Shafna C. and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 492
Counsel for the respondents: A. Haroon Rasheed, T.C. Krishna – Senior Panel Counsel, Seetha S. - Sr. PP