A batch of matters — including this land acquisition appeal filed by Brinda against the State of Kerala and Technopark, challenging the adequacy of compensation awarded by the II Additional Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram in LAR No.122 of 2013 under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act — came up for admission before a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court on 09.04.2025. Counsel for the appellants/petitioners were absent across the entire batch, prompting the Bench to inquire of the Government Pleaders present as to the reason for the en masse non-appearance.
The Bench was informed that the Kerala High Court Advocates' Association had issued a call for a pen-down protest/boycott on that date, ostensibly over the State government's enhancement of court fees, even as a PIL on the same issue was pending before the Chief Justice's Court. The Bench expressed strong disapproval of both the boycott call and the tone of the Association's letter to the Chief Justice, characterising it as a "serious breach of decorum" containing "gratuitous sermons interspersed with veiled threats."
Dismissed for default, the Bench extensively quoted the Supreme Court's binding declarations in Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal v. Union of India and Another [(2003) 2 SCC 45] — holding that lawyers have no right to strike or boycott, even on a token basis — and Krishnakant Tamrakar v. State of Madhya Pradesh [(2018) 17 SCC 27] — holding that every resolution to strike is per se contempt and that office-bearers of associations calling strikes may be restrained from appearing in courts. Declining to condone the non-representation, the Bench dismissed all matters without prejudice, granting litigants one month to seek restoration on showing sufficient cause and demonstrating readiness to argue on the date the restoration application is taken up.