Court Fee Hike Row: Kerala HC Dismisses Cases Citing Non-Appearance Of Counsel, Frowns Upon Bar Body's 'Veiled Threat' In Form Of Boycott

The Bench of Justice A. K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Easwaran S. opined that the protest was "illegal and preposterous" especially when the KHCAA has filed a PIL raising the same issue and the matter is pending before the Chief Justice's Court.

The bench added that it cannot be a party to such boycott calls which have been declared illegal by the Supreme Court in Capt. Harish Uppal v Union of India and Another (2003) and Krishnakant Tamrakar v State of Madhya Pradesh (2018).

The KHCAA in its letter to the Chief Justice had expressed its hope that no adverse steps will be taken for non-appearance today, as the protest was intended to raise awareness among the public. It was also stated in the letter that the Judges may use the day to pen down judgments in reserved matters.

The High Court possibly referring to this remark observed that the contents of the letter were 'distasteful'.

“It also manifests a serious breach of the decorum that is expected to be maintained in this hallowed institution. Letters addressed by an Association of Advocates to the Chief Justice of the High Court cannot take the form of gratuitous sermons interspersed with veiled threats,” it added.

The Court however said that the litigants of the dismissed cases can move for restoration of the matter within one month by showing sufficient cause for non-representation. The Court added that they should be ready to argue the matter on the day the application comes of restoration comes before the Court.