On April 9, 2025, the Kerala High Court took a firm stand and dismissed several pending cases due to non-appearance of lawyers in court. The reason? A statewide ‘pen-down protest’ organized by the Kerala High Court Advocates’ Association (KHCAA) against the State Government's recent hike in court fees.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Dr. A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Easwaran S. observed that a significant number of advocates were absent when the matters were listed for hearing. Upon inquiry, the Government Pleaders confirmed that the absence was part of a boycott call initiated by the KHCAA.

Read also: Kerala Tells Supreme Court: Tamil Nadu Governor Verdict Also Applies To Our Case On Withheld Bills

“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.” – Kerala High Court

The judges noted that a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) regarding the court fee hike is already pending before the Chief Justice's Bench. The court expressed disapproval over the association’s decision to protest while the matter is sub judice.

Referring to the letter sent by KHCAA to the Chief Justice, which expressed hope that no adverse action would be taken against absent advocates and suggested judges could use the time to write pending judgments, the court called the remarks “distasteful” and a serious breach of decorum.

Read also: Kerala High Court Grants 15-Day Parole to Mohammed Nisham in 2015 Security Guard Murder Case

The Bench cited two landmark Supreme Court judgments to clarify that lawyers have no legal right to boycott court proceedings.

1. Capt. Harish Uppal v. Union of India (2003) 2 SCC 45

The Supreme Court had clearly held:

“Lawyers have no right to go on strike or give a call for boycott, not even on a token strike. Lawyers must refuse to follow such calls. No threat or coercion can be used by Bar Associations, and no court is obliged to adjourn cases because of such strikes.”

The Kerala High Court reminded advocates that courts must carry on with hearings, even if lawyers are absent due to strike calls.

Read also: Kerala High Court Quashes Hate Speech Case Against Swami Bhadrananda Due to Police Delay in Filing Final Report

2. Krishnakant Tamrakar v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2018) 17 SCC 27

“Strikes by lawyers amount to contempt of court. Office bearers who call for such strikes can be restrained from appearing in court and may also be removed from their posts until they purge themselves of contempt.”

“This call to boycott, in the name of court fee hike, is illegal and preposterous.” – Kerala High Court

The Bench further stated that they cannot condone such instances of non-representation and emphasized that courts cannot be a party to such unlawful protest calls. The court clarified that this form of protest harms the justice delivery system, and even if lawyers disagree with government policies, there are lawful ways to express such dissent.

While dismissing the cases for default, the High Court granted an opportunity to affected litigants. They can file restoration applications within one month, provided they explain the absence of counsel and are ready to argue the matter on the very day their restoration plea is heard.

“As Judges, we cannot be party to such calls for boycott that are antithetical to justice delivery.” – Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court’s judgment serves as a strong reminder that courts prioritize the litigants’ right to justice over collective protests. While the legal community has a right to voice concerns, they cannot obstruct court functioning or violate Supreme Court directions. The judgment not only reasserts the law but also protects public access to justice from being caught in the crossfire of protests.