Manjeri Court: Najeeb Kanthapuram Contempt for Advocate Commissioner Obstruction

• A Manjeri court has initiated *suo motu* contempt of court proceedings against Perinthalmanna MLA Najeeb Kanthapuram.
• The proceedings stem from allegations that Kanthapuram obstructed a court-appointed Advocate Commissioner during property possession duties.
• Advocate K.P. Krishna Kumar, the Advocate Commissioner, reported that Kanthapuram's intervention led to an argument and prevented the completion of the task.
• The court has ordered a show-cause notice to be issued to Kanthapuram within seven working days, with the next hearing scheduled for October 9.
• The Advocate Commissioner's complaint has also been forwarded to the Station House Officer, and the Malappuram Superintendent of Police has been directed to investigate.

The initiation of *suo motu* contempt proceedings against a public figure like an MLA sends a clear message about the inviolability of court orders and the authority of those tasked with their execution.

A Manjeri court has initiated significant legal action against Perinthalmanna MLA Najeeb Kanthapuram, commencing *suo motu* contempt of court proceedings. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saritha Raveendran, took this step on September 29, following allegations that the legislator impeded a court-appointed Advocate Commissioner in the execution of official duties. The court's order mandates the issuance of a show-cause notice to Kanthapuram within seven working days, requiring him to explain his conduct.

The next hearing in this matter is scheduled for October 9. These proceedings stem from a complaint filed by Advocate K.P. Krishna Kumar, who was serving as the Advocate Commissioner. His role involved overseeing the process of taking possession of a property, a task necessitated by a loan default. The Perinthalmanna Urban Co-operative Bank had sought judicial intervention to recover the property.

According to the Advocate Commissioner's complaint, the incident occurred when he, accompanied by bank officials and police personnel, visited the borrower's property to carry out the court-mandated possession. It is alleged that MLA Najeeb Kanthapuram intervened at this juncture, questioning the legality and propriety of the ongoing action. This intervention reportedly led to a heated argument between the MLA and the officials present.

The confrontation ultimately resulted in the Advocate Commissioner and his accompanying team being unable to complete their assigned duties, forcing them to leave the premises without securing possession of the property. Subsequently, Advocate Krishna Kumar formally lodged a complaint, detailing the alleged misbehavior and obstruction he experienced at the hands of MLA Kanthapuram while attempting to fulfill his court-appointed responsibilities.

The Manjeri court's decision to initiate *suo motu* contempt proceedings underscores the gravity with which the judiciary views any interference with its officers. The order explicitly directed that a show-cause notice be served to "Sri. Najeeb Kanthapuram MLA, Perinthalmanna Constituency," within the stipulated timeframe. This direct action by the court, without an external petition, highlights the perceived affront to judicial authority.

Further demonstrating the seriousness of the allegations, the Advocate Commissioner's complaint, which detailed the obstruction, was forwarded to the Station House Officer on September 28. Concurrently, the court issued a directive to the Malappuram Superintendent of Police, instructing an investigation into the matter. This dual approach signifies the court's intent to address both the contempt aspect and the potential criminal implications of obstructing a public servant in India.

This case, involving Perinthalmanna MLA Najeeb Kanthapuram and the alleged obstruction of an Advocate Commissioner in Kerala, carries significant implications for the respect accorded to judicial processes and court-appointed officials. The initiation of *suo motu* contempt proceedings against a public figure like an MLA sends a clear message about the inviolability of court orders and the authority of those tasked with their execution. Obstruction of an Advocate Commissioner's powers, especially during duties like property possession, directly undermines the judicial system's ability to enforce its directives.

The incident highlights the critical importance for all citizens, particularly elected representatives, to uphold the rule of law and refrain from interfering with court-mandated actions. Such actions can lead to severe legal consequences, as demonstrated by the Manjeri court's swift response. This instance serves as a potent reminder of the legal ramifications for obstructing Advocate Commissioner duties, reinforcing the principle that judicial officers must be allowed to perform their functions without hindrance.

Lawyers must advise clients, especially public figures or those involved in enforcement actions, about the severe legal ramifications, including suo motu contempt proceedings, for obstructing court-appointed officials like Advocate Commissioners. This case underscores the importance of respecting judicial processes and the authority of court officers during property possession or other court-mandated duties.

Source: Reporting based on initial news accounts.