MATHEWS J. NEDUMPARA Vs. SIVANKUTTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application by a stranger, under Rule 152 of the Rules of the High Court of Kerala, 1971, (for short, 'High Court Rules'), seeking opportunity to intervene in a contempt of court case registered on the allegation that the respondent in that proceeding has committed criminal contempt.

(2.) Though the applicant has given vakalathnama and thus engaged advocates, he has chosen to appear and argue in person supporting the captioned application. This is criticized by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the contempt of court case as well as by the learned Senior counsel for the contemnor on issues of eligibility to do so and the propriety of such procedure. The petitioner in the contempt of court case has also filed counter affidavit to this application seeking permission to intervene.

(3.) We have read the applicant's affidavit filed in support of his application. Having considered that affidavit and the contents of the application, the applicant does not appear to be a necessary, or even a proper, person to be heard in the matter. Notwithstanding that the petitioner in the contempt of court case as well as the respondent therein have objected to this application through their respective learned counsel, we are perturbed by the unsolicited and unwarranted howling by the applicant that he had been submitting before the different High Courts as well as the Honourable Supreme Court that this High Court is sublime in its performance, and, that he had projected before all those courts that one of the Judges in this combination of the Division Bench; namely, Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan (J) is emulative. Judicial institutions and the servants of the Sovereign, namely, the Judges who man it, ought to be left best to themselves. Pampering and fanning are deprecated spheres; never to be acclaimed as part of advocacy. Courts are not platforms for unavailable intrusions and they cannot be transformed to be spring boards for expression of opinions by one and all. It can never be permitted to be utilized for unsolicited interference without even a vestige of right of being heard in any particular judicial proceeding.