The Kerala High Court's Rules Committee has decided to strike out provisions that allow the use of the traditional public announcement methods known as 'tom-tom' and 'kinnam mutti vilambaram' in property attachment proceedings, marking a significant procedural break with a practice that has survived from princely times into the modern court system.
The decision, prompted by a sustained campaign by a rights activist, reflects a broader judicial shift away from archaic forms of public notice that many now view as outdated, inefficient and out of step with contemporary standards of court administration. While the practice once served a practical purpose in an era when formal communication channels were limited, its continued presence in court rules has increasingly stood out as a relic of older governance systems.
Old Ritual, New Scrutiny
The 'tom-tom' system traditionally involved a public crier announcing court-related notices in local areas, while 'kinnam mutti vilambaram' relied on a similar public proclamation method using percussion to draw attention. These methods were used to inform the public about property attachment proceedings, ensuring that those with an interest in the matter could be alerted in the absence of widespread literacy, print circulation or digital communication.
Although the custom dates back to the days of princely rule, it endured through the colonial period and remained embedded in some court procedures even after independence. Its survival illustrates how legal systems can preserve inherited administrative habits long after the original conditions that justified them have disappeared. In Kerala, where institutional reform has often intersected with strong public debate, the issue has now been brought into sharper focus by civil society pressure.
The Rules Committee's decision is therefore more than a technical amendment. It is a recognition that public notice in the 21st century is increasingly expected to be transparent, standardized and accessible through formal written and digital channels rather than through ceremonial or oral announcements. For courts, the change may also reduce ambiguity over how notices are served and how compliance is recorded.
Fees And Formalities
The old system had not only survived in principle but also acquired a cost structure of its own. In 2016, tom-tom charges were increased from ₹15 to ₹100, a revision that underscored how a once-routine public function had become an administratively priced service within the court framework. Even so, the fee increase did little to revive the relevance of the practice itself.
The persistence of such charges also highlighted a deeper policy question: whether the state should continue to maintain procedures that are symbolic rather than functional. For litigants and court users, the issue is not merely one of nostalgia versus reform. It concerns the efficiency, fairness and credibility of notice mechanisms in property disputes, where attachment proceedings can have serious financial and legal consequences.
The removal of the provision is likely to be seen as part of a wider modernization of judicial processes, especially in a state where courts have increasingly relied on formal service methods, publication in newspapers and other documented means of communication. It also aligns with the broader administrative trend of eliminating obsolete rules that no longer serve a meaningful public purpose.
Reform By Rulebook
The decision by the High Court's Rules Committee does not by itself rewrite the history of the practice, but it does close an important procedural chapter. By removing the provision from the rulebook, the court is effectively acknowledging that legal procedure must evolve with social conditions, communication technology and public expectations.
For legal reformers, the move may be welcomed as a small but telling example of institutional self-correction. For historians, it marks the fading of one of the more visible remnants of older local governance. And for the judiciary, it offers a reminder that even minor procedural rules can carry the weight of history, symbolism and public perception.
The end of the 'tom-tom' in court procedure is unlikely to attract the attention reserved for major constitutional rulings. Yet its significance lies precisely in its modesty: a long-standing custom, once essential, is now being retired because the legal system has finally outgrown it.