The Kerala High Court recently found itself in the middle of a courtroom drama few could have imagined. A woman claiming to be a lawyer appeared to argue her own case—then turned the proceeding into an unsettling spectacle by accusing the judges of harboring “evil thoughts” and being “undeserving” of their seats.
The Division Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice MB Snehalatha described the incident as “shocking” and “petrifying,” recounting how the petitioner’s behavior veered from inappropriate to outright bizarre.
It began when the woman appeared dressed in full advocates’ attire—a privilege not permitted for those representing themselves. When told to remove her gown, she lashed out, alleging that the judges wanted to “expose her.” The courtroom fell into stunned silence.
Attempting to calm the storm, the judges briefly passed over the matter. Fellow advocates intervened, convincing her to remove her gown, though she defiantly kept the lawyer’s band. When the hearing resumed, her tone grew combative. Realizing the Bench was unlikely to rule in her favor, she declared the judges “ignorant of the law” and “unworthy.”
The Court refrained from reproducing her exact words, calling them “obnoxious and perverse,” but noted that her conduct “breached all norms of civility.” Even so, the judges decided not to initiate contempt proceedings, saying only: “We are aghast that an Advocate—if she indeed is one—has stooped so low. We leave it there.”
The Bench, however, suggested that the Bar Council or Bar Association examine the woman’s behavior. “If she truly is an advocate, it is alarming that she appears oblivious to even the most basic principles—that one cannot appear as party-in-person in professional robes, or invoke Article 32 before a High Court,” the order read. The Court warned that unchecked conduct of this nature could “tarnish the nobility of the profession.”
The petitioner had challenged a family court’s decision granting her husband a divorce, filing it as a writ petition instead of a statutory appeal. The High Court upheld the Registry’s objection, ruling the petition not maintainable. It also noted inconsistencies in her claims and her unexplained three-year delay in filing.
The Bench closed the case but clarified that the petitioner remained free to pursue the proper appellate route under the Code of Civil Procedure.
In the end, what began as a plea over a divorce order became a cautionary tale—of a courtroom where decorum gave way to disbelief.
