The tussle between advocates and journalists on the premises of the High Court of Kerala has taken a turn for the worse with the Kerala High Court Advocates’ Association serving show cause notices to prominent members who have called for conciliation. Here’s how they responded.
Advocates’ association is not a cadre party
Sebastian Paul
I have heard that the Kerala High Court Advocates’ Association is about to serve a show cause notice on me but I have not received anything so far. I am not very clear on the offense I have committed. May be the association was offended by my opinions that went against their line. I will respond if I get a notice.
The advocates’ association is not a cadre party or a religious organization. The association can ask for an explanation if it thinks that I had made some trouble. I will give a reply to it.
The advocates should have borne in mind that the media room in the court and the camera they broke were their windows to the world.
You have legal recourse against wrong news
Kaliswaram Raj
Advocates adopting violence is not a right tendency. They have legal recourse against any case or news which they think are not correct. It is not right to defy laws and take to the streets.
Like any individual, an advocate also has the freedom of expression. I stand by whatever I have said earlier. I will continue to talk my mind and write. Freedom of expression is getting more relevant now.
The Supreme Court verdict in the Sreya Singhal case and the Madras High Court verdict in the Perumal Murugan case have highlighted the importance of freedom of expression.
Advocates have no right to boycott courts
C.P. Udayabhanu
I will explain my part if I am served with a notice. I stand by whatever I said in print and electronic media. If the association wants to take disciplinary action against me for expressing my opinion, I will continue to do so.
Advocates do not have a right to protest by boycotting court proceedings. This is not an agitation to defend any professional right or to attain any common goal.
Advocates erred in attacking the journalists reporting on the allegation against an advocate, rather than discussing the crime itself.
Will grab the opportunity
A Jayashankar
I do not know which of my comments created so much of heartburn. I do not think that I have made any comment that defames advocates’ association or the lawyers’ fraternity. I have to wait until I get the notice to understand that.
Advocates and journalists have been working so close that the problems between them can be easily solved by senior advocates. A solution is getting delayed because people close to each other will take longer to patch up.
Let there be no misconception that closing down the media room in the court will prevent journalists from reporting court procedures. That will affect advocates more than the journalists. We should end this squabbling at the earliest.
I have written so many explanations for so many clients, from labourers to public sector general managers. Now I am getting an opportunity to write one for myself. I will give a clear reply if I get the notice.
Members have to be intimated first
Sivan Madathil
The advocate facing allegations of sexual misconduct has approached the court. So the legally aware advocates should have waited until the court made its mind clear. The current tussle between advocates and reporters is unprecedented in the High Court of Kerala.
I came to know of the association’s decisions through the media. The association had a duty to let me know of the decisions before going to the press with them. They should have told me which of their bylaws or decisions had I violated.
I have not said anything that defames the association or any of its members. Nor did I say anything that hampers the discharge of duties. I will reply when I get the notice.
They made adverse comments against advocates
S.U. Nazar (president, Kerala High Court Advocates’ Association)
The decision to serve notices on these members was taken in an extraordinary meeting of the Kerala High Court Advocates’ Association. The action is a response to comments against the lawyers’ community in the media without understanding the real incidents related to the tussle between advocates and journalists. A majority of advocates who participated in the association’s meeting backed the decision.
The police and the journalists had united to manhandle advocates on the high court premises. The journalists embargoed the court gate with the help of the police. They did not let advocates and court staff from going home.