At the outset

The recent conflict between lawyers and police officers within the court premises of Kerala has sparked a crucial judicial discourse on preserving the dignity of legal institutions and the rights of individuals. What began as a violent altercation in the Alappuzha District Court complex has evolved into a significant legal matter, prompting Suo moto intervention by the Kerala High Court. As the judiciary seeks to establish protocols to prevent such incidents in the future, this case underscores the urgent need to safeguard constitutional rights and maintain harmony between two essential pillars of justice, the Bar and the Police.

Background

In an unprecedented turn of events over the period of months many things happened after conflict took place between the lawyers and the police which occurred inside the Alappuzha District Court complex where an Advocate, Gopakumar Pandavath, was reportedly attacked by police officers within the premises of the Ramankary Magistrate Court in Alappuzha on September 9, allegedly in retaliation to an altercation that began outside. The act of violence by the police authorities brought widespread condemnation from the Kerala High Court Advocates’ Association (KHCAA) demanding judicial intervention and asking strict actions against the police involved in
the act of violence.

After the incident the Kerala High Court took Suo moto cognizance of the matter, framing it not as a mere disciplinary concern but as a threat to the sanctity of legal institutions. “The courtroom must never be a battleground,” the Court noted in its preliminary remarks.

Committee for Reconciliation

Over the weeks of hearing, the matter again came to limelight on 9 June 2025 when the Kerala High Court constituted committee to suggest guidelines to improve the relationship between lawyer and police amid the ongoing tussle. The committee comprised of Kerala Advocate General K Gopalakrishna Kurup, Director General of Prosecution TA Shaji, Senior Advocates Santhosh Mathew and S Sreekumar and KHCAA President Yeshwanth Shenoy.

Oral Remarks by the Division bench – caution against mechanical arrests Fast forward to 2 July, the Kerala High court while hearing the matter, Division Bench of Dr. Justice A. K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice P. M. Manoj made oral remarks
to committee members urging the committee that there should be general guidelines regarding the protocols to be followed in the situations when the conflict, such as in this case where two police officer assaulted a lawyer, occurs inside the court premise.
The court also remarked that the sanctity of the court must be kept with the utmost dignity and respect. The court further stated that the guidelines should not only address situations where a lawyer is the accused, but it should also involve the situation when any accused
person engages in an altercation in the presence of a lawyer. In such cases, police should listen and consider to what the lawyer of the accused has to say for the incident. Emphasizing the importance of dignity in policing the court cautioned against mechanical arrests. The Court observed that neither law enforcement officers nor lawyers are above constitutional norms, and what is needed is not assertion of power but assertion of principles.

Conclusion
The oral remarks made by the Division bench of Kerala High court highlights the importance of Article 14, Article 20, Article 21, Article 22 and necessity to protect and respect the Right of Personal life and liberty of Every individual including the lawyers. Through its ongoing Suo motu proceedings, the Kerala High Court is doing far more than responding to a single episode of violence, it is reshaping the way institutions relate to each other within the justice system. This initiative reflects a proactive model of judicial leadership that moves beyond resolving disputes to nurture institutional harmony and respect for individual dignity. As the proceedings unfold, the Court’s July 2 observations offer a powerful reminder that the practice of law is not just about enforcing rules but it is about nurturing relationships. And the relationship between lawyers and police must be grounded in mutual respect, responsibility, and a common commitment to justice.

All rights reserved. 

Vaibhav Tomar (Adv)

Megha Verma (Adv)

Supreme Court has observed that the relief of specific performance of a contract cannot be granted in the absence of a clear title. The Court was considering an appeal filed by the Defendant in a suit for Specific Performance of a contract. The Trial Court had dismissed the suit. The first Appellate Court allowed the appeal of the plaintiff and decreed the suit. The High Court dismissed the second appeal filed by the appellant.