Back
A Courtroom Breach: Demands Answers After Lawyer Traumatizes Child in Custody Battle
In an unusual and stern intervention, the has ordered an immediate probe to identify a legal professional who allegedly bypassed to directly approach a minor involved in a contentious . The incident, which disrupted court proceedings, has prompted a high-level inquiry by the bench of Justice J. Nisha Banu and Justice Shoba Annamma Eapen .
A Custody Battle Takes a Dark Turn
The case involves a protracted between the mother, Sreedhanya Bhaskaran, and the father, Balakrishnan V.S., over their 6-year-old son. As part of ongoing efforts to resolve the child's residence, the court had ordered the mother to produce the child for a private chamber interaction.
While the court had explicitly exempted the father from personal appearance to minimize the child's distress, the courtroom atmosphere shifted abruptly. According to legal counsel present, an unidentified lawyer entered the court hall, approached the child—who was sitting in the back row with his mother—and whispered,
"Are you not Manu (the child’s name)? Father is waiting down."
The Impact on the Minor
The effect was immediate and distressing. Though initially energetic and secure, the child retreated into a protective shell, physically clinging to his mother and showing visible signs of fear when asked to enter the judges' chambers for an interview. The court, which had previously reviewed CCTV footage and internal audio recordings, confirmed that the lawyer’s actions were an unauthorized and targeted maneuver to influence the child.
"Today’s untoward incident in the court hall has deeply disturbed us,"
the bench stated, noting that the unauthorized message was clearly conveyed with "ulterior motives."
Courtroom Ethics and the Role of the Bar
The ’s frustration was palpable, as the bench questioned the ethical standards of a legal professional choosing to weaponize a child’s emotional state during litigation.
"A lawyer’s duty extends beyond the client to the court, to the administration of justice and to the society at large. As an and a guardian of the , a lawyer must uphold the , assist in the dispensation of justice and ensure that legal expertise is not employed to perpetuate illegality or injustice."
By involving the (DLSA) at every stage—from the transfer of custody to the appointment of a Child Support Lawyer (CSL) under the program—the court has signaled that the welfare of the child remains the paramount consideration, far outweighing the tactical maneuvers of either party.
The Path Forward
In response to the incident, the court has directed the Registry to utilize video conferencing platform recordings and CCTV footage to trace the identity of the individual. The Advocates’ Association and the have been enlisted to assist in this identification.
Meanwhile, the court has decided to maintain the status quo of with the mother, placing the child under the supportive observation of a Child Support Lawyer. The matter is set to return to the docket on , where the —led by Senior Mediator —is expected to begin.
Key Observations
*
On the Lawyer’s Duty:
"The profession demands a commitment to the public good. But for the said incident, the child would have remained comfortable, and we could have interacted with him to arrive at a proper conclusion."
*
On Judicial Integrity:
"The lawyer, who unauthorisedly approached the child in the court hall and showed the courage to convey the message to the child about the arrival of the father, has done great injustice to the court as well as to the minor child."
*
On Child Welfare:
"Having regard to the psychological trauma and discomfort caused to the child,
, Child Support Lawyer (CSL) under the
(CLAP) of the
is appointed to interact with the child."
The court's firm stance serves as a stark reminder: when the courtroom is used as a stage for emotional games involving minors, the judiciary will act with the full weight of its authority to protect the most vulnerable participants.
