Court’s Directions Without Any Foundation On Apprehension That Lawyer May Do Some Acts Illegally Is Interference To Right To Practice: Kerala HC
The Kerala High Court observed that the directions or proceedings by any court of law without any foundation on the apprehension that the lawyer may do some acts illegally, is an interference in the Right to Practice under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
The Court observed thus in a criminal miscellaneous case in which the proceedings under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) were challenged.
A Single Bench of Justice K. Babu remarked, “A lawyer appearing for a party in a proceeding is an officer of the Court. He is always expected to discharge his duties and responsibilities legally. A Court is not expected to form an apprehension without any foundation that the lawyer may do some illegal acts during the course of his profession. Issuing any proceedings or directions by any court of law without any foundation on the apprehension that the lawyer may do some acts illegally is an interference in the right to practice. The profession of law by a lawyer is enshrined in Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and governed by the Advocates’ Act.”
Advocate Renjith B. Marar appeared for the petitioner/accused while Public Prosecutor M.K. Pushpalatha appeared for the respondent/State.
In this case, the challenge was to the proceedings of the Fast Track Special Court (POCSO), Thrissur. The petitioner (accused) was alleged to have committed offences punishable under Section 354-A(1)(i) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), Sections 7, 8, 9(o), and 10 of POCSO Act, Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (JJ Act) and Section 3(2) (va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act).
The counsel for the petitioner in the Trial Court submitted an application seeking certified copy of the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) and the Special Judge directed the petitioner to file an affidavit, stating that such copy of the statement will not be misused. The proceedings were, therefore, challenged by the petitioner accused before the High Court.
The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case said, “… the proceedings dated 29.9.2022 issued by the Special Judge directing the petitioner/lawyer concerned to file an affidavit stating that the copy of the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. will not be misused was unwarranted and therefore the same stands quashed. I make it clear that there is not even a need to insist for such an affidavit by the accused himself.”
The Court concluded that the petitioner is entitled to certified copies of the statements recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. under Section 207 Cr.P.C. read with Section 31 of the POCSO Act. It, therefore, directed the Special Judge to issue certified copies of the statements of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. forthwith.
Accordingly, the Court disposed of the criminal miscellaneous case.
Cause Title- Chandra Mouli v. State of Kerala (Neutral Citation: 2024:KER:34707)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Renjith B. Marar and Lakshmi N. Kaimal.
Respondent: PP M.K. Pushpalatha
