Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Kerala Division Bench of Justice Dr. A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Jobin Sebastian directed that the term “court premises” shall include not just the courtrooms but also all lands, buildings, and structures used in connection with court proceedings, except residential quarters. The Bench held that any arrest, detention, or apprehension of persons within the court premises during court hours shall generally require prior intimation to the presiding judicial officer. It was further directed that grievance redressal committees shall be constituted at the State and District levels to resolve disputes between members of the Bar and the Police. The Court ordered the State Government to issue an Office Memorandum to inform all stakeholders of these clarifications.

The matter originated as a suo motu Public Interest Litigation initiated by the Court based on a letter dated 10.09.2024 received from the Kerala High Court Advocates’ Association. The letter stated an incident involving an altercation between an Advocate and Police officials within the premises of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ramankary in Alappuzha District. Recognising the rising number of such incidents across the State, the Court considered it necessary to frame guidelines.

Also Read: Supreme Court | Toll Collection Impermissible Where Highways Are In Disrepair | Kerala High Court View On User Fee Under National Highways Act Affirmed

Through an order dated 20.11.2024, the Court directed the Secretary, Home Department, and the Director General of Police to place before it all recent Government Orders, Circulars, and Office Memoranda, if any, relating to the conduct of Police personnel within court premises. In response, an affidavit filed by the State Police Chief on 06.01.2025 clarified that, apart from existing circulars on investigation and prosecution, no specific circular existed for guiding Police personnel on conduct within judicial proceedings. The Court thus deemed it necessary for the State Government to prescribe a Model Code of Etiquette and Conduct.

A draft Model Code was subsequently presented before the Court on 24.03.2025. This Code dealt with the etiquette of Police personnel, behaviour standards for the public and stakeholders, and guidelines for media reporting. The Court extracted and examined the first two parts relating to Police personnel and public behaviour. The Model Code outlined aspects of professionalism, integrity, respect, courtesy, appearance, use of force, relations with lawyers, use of technology, grievance redressal, ethical conduct, leadership, and mental health.

Given that the Model Code was general in nature, the Court directed the State Police Chief to invite suggestions from stakeholders including the Bar Council of Kerala, the Kerala High Court Advocates’ Association, and the Director General of Prosecution. A report dated 04.06.2025 was submitted in compliance. The report analysed suggestions from the Advocates’ Association, which included proposals on respect for the legal profession, restrictions on arrests within court premises, grievance redressal, and sensitisation programmes.

The State Police Chief responded that certain suggestions were already covered under statutory provisions, such as Section 29 of the Kerala Police Act, 2011 requiring courtesy and propriety in public interactions. Regarding the proposal that police should not use force or arrest accused persons within court premises without judicial sanction, the Police Chief noted practical difficulties, including emergent situations involving violent mobs, fugitives, or cognizable offences. It was, however, submitted that a protocol could be adopted requiring police to seek prior permission of the presiding judicial officer before arresting within the court hall, except in emergent situations.

Suggestions concerning prior intimation to the Bar Council were rejected as impractical, while reciprocal disciplinary action against both police and advocates for manhandling or verbal abuse was deemed feasible. The Police Chief further noted that guidelines already existed on entry of advocates into police stations and CCTV surveillance of police stations, and that grievance redressal mechanisms were available through the ICOPS platform. Sensitisation programmes and permanent frameworks for dialogue between bar associations and district police were accepted as practical measures.

The Court thereafter recorded that some ambiguity persisted as to what constituted “court premises.” Observing the shared use of buildings by courts and other establishments, the Court constituted a Committee comprising the Advocate General of the State, the Director General of Prosecution, the President of the Kerala High Court Advocates’ Association, and Senior Advocates Sri. S. Sreekumar and Sri. Santhosh Mathew. This Committee reviewed the report and provided further suggestions. Submissions from the Kerala Police Officers’ Association were also placed on record.

The Court observed that over and above existing statutory provisions, administrative guidelines, and judicial precedents, further clarifications were required to guide law enforcement in effecting arrests within court premises. The Bench recorded: “Court premises shall be taken as referring to not just the courtrooms, but shall also include all lands, buildings and structures (except residential quarters) used in connection with court proceedings during the notified working hours of the court, or till the court is in session, whichever is later.”

On the issue of arrest, the Court stated: “Arrest, detention or apprehending any person in court premises during court hours shall, except in situations covered by clause (iii) below, be done only with prior intimation to the Presiding officer/jurisdictional court.” Further, it was recorded: “Provided that any person who intends to surrender before court in connection with any crime either by himself or accompanying a lawyer/advocate shall not be arrested, apprehended or detained in court premises without prior permission of the Presiding officer/jurisdictional court.”

Addressing emergent circumstances, the Court stated: “Police may arrest or use necessary force to arrest persons in court premises in emergent situations necessitating immediate action in order to prevent the occurrence of a cognizable offence within the court premises. Police can also arrest absconding persons/accused in long pending warrant matters in the court premises. However, intimation of arrest of persons in both of the aforementioned circumstances must be given to the presiding officer of the court immediately after the arrest.”

On grievance redressal mechanisms, the Court noted the precedents in Chalakkudy Bar Association v. Thomas Jolly Cheriyan and District Bar Association Dehradun v. Ishwar Shandilya and Others. Referring to these, it recorded: “With a view to instil a two-tier grievance redressal mechanism at the State and District level, Committees are to be constituted at both levels.”

At the State level, the Committee was directed to consist of the Advocate General, Director General of Police, three members of the Bar nominated by the High Court Bar Association, the Superintendent of Police of the concerned area, and the President of the relevant Bar Association. At the District level, the Committee was directed to consist of the Principal District Judge, District Police Chief, District Government Pleader, and two members of the concerned Bar Association. The Court observed: “Disputes or grievances that cannot be resolved at the District Level shall be escalated to the State Level and resolved by the State Level Committee.”

Also Read: Legislative Intent Cannot Be Nullified | Kerala High Court Orders Revival Of Kochi Transport Authority Saying It Will Rationalise Public Transport Fares

The Court clarified that the definition of “court premises” extended beyond the courtrooms to include all lands, buildings, and structures used in connection with court proceedings, excluding residential quarters, and covering the notified working hours or duration of court sessions. It directed that any arrest, detention, or apprehension of persons within such premises during court hours must be made only with prior intimation to the presiding judicial officer, except in emergent situations where immediate action was required. The Court mandated that in cases of surrender by an accused before the court, the police could not arrest, apprehend, or detain the individual within the court premises without the prior permission of the presiding officer.

It was further directed that in emergent situations necessitating immediate police action to prevent a cognizable offence or in the case of arresting absconding persons with long pending warrants, the police could act without prior permission but must immediately inform the presiding officer of the arrest. The Court instituted a two-tier grievance redressal mechanism comprising Committees at the State and District levels. These Committees were tasked with resolving disputes between police personnel and members of the Bar. The Court directed that disputes unresolved at the District level be escalated to the State level.

The Bench ordered the State Government to issue an Office Memorandum forthwith, stating these clarifications and directives, to ensure all stakeholders were informed.

Post the writ petition for further consideration after two months.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Respondents: Senior Government Pleader, Sri. Santhosh Mathew, Senior Counsel, Sri. B.G. Harindranath, Senior Counsel, Sri. Yeshwanth Shenoy, Counsel, President of the Kerala High Court Advocates’ Association, and Sri. Grashious Kuriakose, Additional Director General of Prosecution.

Case Title: Suo Motu v. State of Kerala and Ors.

Case Number: W.P.(C). No.32952 of 2024

Bench: Justice Dr. A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, Justice Jobin Sebastian