P.N. Ravindran, J.

1. The Kerala High Court Bar is excellent and exemplary - both erudite and polite - almost to a point of perfection. Yet one lawyer has tried to hold the whole system to ransom. Our efforts to make the erring counsel see reason having failed, we have undertaken this unpleasant task of holding a member of the Bar guilty of contempt. We are animated by only a single objective: The canker of contemptuous conduct should not eat into the vitals of this august institution. And, in that process, the Bar’s blemishless image should not be sullied. We will, now, see how this sordid saga has unfolded.

2. This contempt case was registered suo-motu in the wake of the events that transpired in this court on 24.10.2016, when W.P.(Crl) No.351 of 2016, a writ petition filed by Sri N.D. Balaram through Sri C.K. Mohanan, learned counsel of this court, came up for hearing at about 12.55 p.m. on 24.10.2016. The relief sought in W.P.(Crl) No.351 of 2016 filed by Sri N.D. Balaram is a writ of habeas corpus commanding respondents 1 to 4 therein to produce the body of his daughter Ms. Parvathy, aged 20 years, in this court and to hand over her custody to him.

3. By order passed on 23.9.2016 in that writ petition a Division Bench of this court, to which, one of us (P.N. Ravindran, J.) was a member, after interacting with Sri N.D. Balaram, his wife Smt. Sreelatha, respondents 5 to 7 in the writ petition and Ms. Parvathy, daughter of Sri N.D.Balaram, passed an order to the effect that until the respondents in the writ petition file their counter affidavit and the writ petition is heard on the merits, the petitioner's daughter should reside at S.N.V. Sadanam, Ernakulam. The Bench also directed that the expenses in that regard shall be met by the petitioner. The detailed order passed in that regard is part of the records in W.P. (Crl) No.351 of 2016. By that order, this court also directed that the writ petition be again called on 29.9.2016. There was a further order to the effect that the second respondent in the writ petition, viz. Circle Inspector of Police, Alappuzha shall produce the petitioner's daughter in this court on 29.9.2016. As directed therein, W.P.(Crl) No.351 of 2016 came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this court on 29.9.2016 and on that day it was adjourned to 4.10.2016 after interacting with the parties including the petitioner and his daughter. On 4.10.2016 it was adjourned to 7.10.2016 after interacting with the parties. W.P.(Crl)No.351 of 2016 thereafter came up for consideration on 7.10.2016. On that day it was adjourned to 13.10.2016, later to 17.10.2016 and thereafter to 24.10.2016. On that day, as on the earlier dates, Sri N.D. Balaram, the petitioner therein was present in person. When W.P.(Crl)No.351 of 2016 was taken up at about 12.55 p.m., Sri C.K. Mohanan, learned counsel sought an adjournment of the writ petition till 3 p.m. on the ground that he has a sore throat. At that stage we asked Sri N.D. Balaram, the petitioner in W.P.(Crl) No.351 of 2016 with whom this court was regularly interacting, about the present state of affairs. He then stated that he does not want Sri C.K. Mohanan, learned counsel, to appear for him any longer.

4. When we brought to the notice of Sri C.K. Mohanan that the petitioner in W.P.(Crl) No.351 of 2016 does not want him to continue to appear as his counsel, Sri C.K. Mohanan stated (alleged sore throat notwithstanding) in a loud, derisive voice that it is not possible for this court to interfere in the matter and if at all the petitioner does not want him to appear, he should have expressed his desire to engage another counsel, to him first. He thereafter proclaimed in a loud voice that he will not permit it and went on challenging the court. My learned brother Naidu, J. intervened and cautioned Sri C.K. Mohanan that his conduct amounts to contempt of court. He thereupon stated in a loud voice that he is willing to face the consequences and he does not care.