Advocate Commission is an honour bestowed by court, not a salaried job: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court on Wednesday observed that being appointed as an advocate commissioner by a court ought to be considered as an honour, rather than employment for the purpose of getting monetary remuneration. .Justice Devan Ramachandran made the observation while considering a case in which a magistrate had struck off the name of a lawyer from the list of advocates who could be appointed as commissioners, because she asked to be paid a higher amount as batta (allowance) for acting as commissioner on a previous occasion..The Court said that the lawyer's conduct cannot be justified because she assumed that working as a commissioner is a commercial job and not an honour bestowed upon her."Unfortunately, the young lawyer did not understand that when she was appointed as a commissioner, it was an honour that was given to her but she worked under the impression that she was entitled to charge as if it is a commercial quest by the amount of work she has completed and the number of hours she has invested," the Court's order stated. .However, Justice Ramachandran added that the response of the magistrate was uncharitable as it failed to counsel her and instead, struck her name from the list of commissioners."The learned judge reacted to the circumstances in the manner as was apt but should have also been careful enough to understand that the mind of a young lawyer is like a turbulent sea on account of the vagaries and uncertainties that face every new entrant. It requires the commitment of both the Bar and the Bench for any person to continue in the profession. This is not charity, but an obligation on both sides because we want the best of both sides to continue in the profession and give succour to those who come to us seeking justice," the High Court said. .The Court opined that this was not an issue that can be construed as one with the Bar and Bench on opposite sides as such a divide would be detrimental to the legal system as a whole."It is only when we view these two sections (the Bar and the Bench) as not the two tyres on a bicycle, but as a unicycle, can we really hope for a very effective and efficient functioning of the system ... The Bench also has an equal duty not only to conduct itself with the eminence that is expected but also to counsel and mentor the members of the Bar, particularly, the youngest of them," the Court said in its judgment..Justice Ramachandran further reiterated his remarks from a previous hearing that the practice of law is not a commercial enterprise.However, he orally clarified that an earlier remark regarding young lawyers adopting American practices was about them being influenced by American legal soap operas rather than American legal practitioners..Law should not be treated as a money-making profession; don't go by what Americans say: Kerala High Court.The Court's order today was passed on a petition moved by a lawyer practicing in Kottayam who was appointed as an advocate commissioner by the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Kottayam to take possession of certain premises.She received a batta of ₹8,500, following which she visited the premises on three separate occasions, accompanied by officers of the concerned bank. On the third visit, the officials allegedly requested the petitioner to take partial possession.However, when the case was called, the bank told the magistrate that the petitioner had only taken partial possession of the secured asset without their consensus.The petitioner was allegedly taken aback by what transpired before the magistrate and, therefore, informed the bank that she would not be able to complete taking possession.She surrendered her commission warrant and the magistrate directed her to remit the balance batta. However, since she had visited the premises thrice, the petitioner said that there was no balance amount left.The bank filed an objection to this, and ultimately the magistrate passed an order directing the petitioner to return ₹2,500 out of the total ₹8,500 that she had received. The magistrate also ordered the removal of the petitioner's name from the commission panel of the court.This prompted the petitioner to move the High Court contending that this order of the magistrate was unreasonable, arbitrary and illegal.Therefore, she sought orders from the High Court to quash the order of the magistrate..The High Court today set aside the order only to the extent that it struck her name off the panel of advocates who could be appointed as commissioners. The part of the order which directed her to return ₹2,500 was confirmed. "I beseech upon her (petitioner-lawyer) to be a flag bearer of the best traditions of this profession and be ready for the future that awaits her which I am certain will be the most decorous if she understands the working of this system. She should be advised not to treat commission batta as being remuneration and only as an honorarium given as an honour for being chosen by the court- to do what it does for itself," the Court said..The petitioner was represented by advocates Apoorva Ramkumar, V Ramkumar Nambiar, V John Sebastian Ralph, Ralph Reti John, Vishnu Chandran and Giridhar Krishna Kumar.