Back
Manjeri Court Issues Notice to MLA Najeeb Kanthapuram for Obstruction
The , has taken a decisive step to uphold the sanctity of judicial processes by issuing a under the , to Perinthalmanna MLA Najeeb Kanthapuram. The notice, issued on , follows allegations that the legislator obstructed a court-appointed advocate commissioner who had been deputed to take possession of a property in connection with a loan recovery matter. The case, registered as MC No. 781 of 2026, has been posted for the next hearing on October 9.
Court Takes Action
Chief Judicial Magistrate Saritha Raveendran initiated the proceedings after receiving a complaint from , who had been appointed as the advocate commissioner by the same court. The complaint alleged that when the commissioner, along with bank officials and police, visited the borrower’s property, MLA Najeeb Kanthapuram intervened, questioned the action, and engaged in an argument that ultimately forced the officials to leave without completing the proceedings.
The court’s order directed that a be served on the MLA within seven working days. The operative portion of the order reads: “Issue show cause notice to the alleged Sri.Najeeb Kanthapuram MLA, Perinthalmanna Constituency within 7 working days.” The notice has been issued under .
The Alleged Obstruction
The incident that triggered the contempt action arose from a civil dispute involving the , which had approached the court for relief after a loan default. The court appointed as commissioner to take possession of the borrower’s house. During the execution of the commission, Kanthapuram allegedly confronted the commissioner and questioned the legality of the proceeding, leading to a heated exchange. The commissioner later filed a detailed complaint, prompting the court to first direct the to provide necessary assistance, and then to initiate contempt proceedings the following day.
The MLA’s version of events is not yet on record. The notice requires him to show cause why action should not be taken against him for allegedly interfering with the . The court has not yet recorded any finding of contempt; the matter is at the preliminary stage.
Legal Framework: Defined
, defines to include three categories: (i) words, signs, or visible representations that scandalize or tend to scandalize the authority of any court; (ii) prejudicing or interfering with judicial proceedings; and (iii) any act that interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the in any other manner. The third limb is the provision under which the present notice has been issued.
Obstruction of a court-appointed officer—such as an advocate commissioner—while performing official duties squarely falls within the ambit of Section 2(c)(iii). The rationale is that any interference with a commissioner’s work directly undermines the court’s authority and the smooth functioning of the judicial system. The notice also invokes Section 15, which governs the procedure for taking cognizance of . In the case of a subordinate court, Section 15(2) allows the High Court to act on a reference from the lower court, though the initial notice can be issued by the magistrate court itself.
Implications for the Legal Community
This case highlights the judiciary’s willingness to protect its officers from external pressure, especially when that pressure comes from a public representative. For legal professionals, the development serves as a reminder that advocate commissioners and court-appointed officials are extensions of the court’s authority. Any interference, whether by a private citizen or by an elected official, can attract contempt proceedings.
The nature of the action is significant. It shows that courts do not wait for a formal application from the aggrieved commissioner; they can independently take cognizance of conduct that threatens the . This proactive stance is consistent with recent trends in Indian jurisprudence, where higher courts have increasingly used contempt powers to discipline those who obstruct judicial work.
What Next?
The case is listed for , when the MLA is expected to appear or file a response. If the court finds a case of contempt, it may refer the matter to the High Court for punishment, as Section 10 of the Act vests the power to punish for contempt of subordinate courts with the High Court. Alternatively, the MLA may offer an apology or explain that the incident was a misunderstanding. The outcome will be closely watched by the legal fraternity in Kerala, given the involvement of an elected representative.
The incident also raises broader questions about the relationship between political power and judicial process. While MLAs have a legitimate role in representing their constituents, that role does not extend to obstructing court-appointed officers. The law expects everyone—regardless of status—to respect and facilitate the execution of court orders. This case will test whether that principle holds firm.
Conclusion
The contempt notice issued to MLA Najeeb Kanthapuram is a clear message that the judiciary will not tolerate interference with its mechanisms. For lawyers and judges, it reinforces the importance of the rule of law and the need to protect commissioners and other court-appointed functionaries. As the proceedings unfold, the legal community will be keen to see how the MLA responds and what precedent this case sets for similar situations in the future. The next hearing on October 9 promises to be a critical juncture in this matter.
