The Kerala High Court ordered an inquiry to identify a lawyer who allegedly approached a minor child inside the court premises and conveyed information that caused emotional distress to the child during proceedings relating to a custody dispute between estranged parents. The Court expressed serious concern over the incident and observed that the conduct attributed to the unidentified lawyer had affected both the welfare of the child and the administration of justice.
The matter arose in connection with ongoing custody proceedings involving a minor child. Earlier, the High Court had directed the father to produce the child before the Court after he failed to comply with a previous order. Subsequently, the child was handed over to the mother for vacation custody with the assistance of the District Legal Services Authority. The father later sought modification of certain interim orders, leading the Court to direct that the child be produced once again so that the judges could interact with the child and assess the child’s wishes and welfare.
When the child appeared before the Court, the judges intended to conduct an independent interaction in a secure and comfortable environment. According to the Court, the child initially appeared cheerful, relaxed, and comfortable. However, a significant change in behaviour was noticed when the child was brought into the judges’ chambers. The child became visibly upset, anxious, and emotionally disturbed, making it difficult for the Court to proceed with the intended interaction.
The Court was informed that an unidentified lawyer had approached the child while the child was seated in the courtroom. According to information placed before the Bench, the lawyer allegedly told the child that the father was waiting downstairs. It was further stated that when questioned about the interaction, the lawyer quickly left the area. Following this incident, the child reportedly became fearful and reluctant to move away from the mother.
The judges examined the circumstances surrounding the incident in detail. The Court reviewed available video recordings and CCTV footage from the court premises. Upon examining the material, the Court recorded its satisfaction that an unidentified lawyer had entered the courtroom, approached the child, communicated with the child, and then left shortly afterwards. The Court found that the sequence of events supported the concerns raised regarding the unauthorized interaction.
The Court observed that the communication had an immediate impact on the child’s emotional state. Because of the distress experienced by the child, the judges were unable to conduct a meaningful and independent interaction as originally planned. In view of the circumstances, the Court directed the mother to leave the court premises with the child and postponed the interaction. The judges considered the emotional well-being of the child to be of paramount importance.
During the proceedings, the Court also took note of the father’s presence within the court complex. Although he had been exempted from personal appearance and was not permitted to enter the court building, it was found that he was present in the facilitation centre located within the court premises. This fact was considered relevant while examining the circumstances surrounding the communication allegedly conveyed to the child.
The Bench expressed strong disapproval of the conduct attributed to the unidentified lawyer. The Court observed that approaching a child involved in a sensitive custody dispute without authorization and conveying information likely to affect the child emotionally was highly inappropriate. According to the Court, such conduct had not only caused distress to the child but had also interfered with the judicial process.
The Court remarked that the interaction appeared to have frustrated its efforts to ascertain the child’s views in a calm, neutral, and secure environment. Child custody proceedings require courts to evaluate the wishes and welfare of children without external influence. Any act capable of affecting a child’s emotional state immediately before such an interaction undermines the Court’s ability to carry out this responsibility effectively.
The Bench further observed that the message delivered to the child appeared to have been conveyed with motives that required careful scrutiny. The Court stated that any attempt to influence a child involved in custody litigation is a matter of serious concern because children in such disputes are particularly vulnerable. The judges emphasized that children must be protected from conduct that increases anxiety, fear, or emotional pressure.
Reflecting on the role of legal professionals, the Court stressed that advocates are officers of the court and are expected to maintain the highest standards of ethics and professional conduct. The Bench observed that a lawyer’s responsibilities extend beyond representing clients and include duties toward the court, the justice delivery system, and society. Legal knowledge and professional status, the Court stated, should never be used in a manner that compromises fairness or obstructs the administration of justice.
The Court also referred to earlier interactions with the child during the course of the custody proceedings. It noted that previous observations indicated that the child appeared comfortable and secure in the presence of the mother while exhibiting apprehension in circumstances involving the father. These earlier observations were considered relevant in assessing the seriousness of the recent incident and its impact on the child’s emotional condition.
Recognising the need for a thorough investigation, the High Court directed the Registry to preserve all relevant video recordings and CCTV footage relating to the incident. The Court ordered that steps be taken to identify the lawyer who allegedly approached the child and communicated with the child inside the courtroom.
The Registry was also directed to seek assistance from the Kerala High Court Advocates’ Association, the Bar Council of Kerala, and any other authorities considered necessary for identifying the individual involved. The Court emphasized that the matter required a proper inquiry because it raised significant concerns regarding professional conduct within court premises.
The High Court observed that proceedings involving child custody demand exceptional sensitivity and care. The welfare of the child remains the primary consideration in such matters, and every participant in the process is expected to act in a manner that protects the child’s emotional and psychological well-being. Any unauthorized attempt to influence, intimidate, or emotionally affect a child involved in court proceedings cannot be tolerated.
Accordingly, the Kerala High Court ordered a probe to identify the lawyer who allegedly approached the child and caused emotional distress during the custody proceedings. The Court directed preservation of all relevant evidence and initiated steps to ascertain the identity of the individual involved. The order reflects the Court’s commitment to safeguarding the welfare of children in custody disputes while ensuring that judicial proceedings remain free from interference and are conducted in a fair and responsible manner.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.