The Kerala High Court's Rules Committee has decided to strike out a long-standing provision that allowed courts to notify the public about property attachment proceedings through the traditional methods of 'tom-tom' and 'kinnam mutti vilambaram', a practice that dates back to princely rule and survived well into the modern era. The decision, prompted by a campaign led by a rights activist, marks a significant but largely symbolic shift in how the judiciary communicates with the public in attachment cases.
The move is notable not only for what it removes, but for what it reveals about the endurance of older legal customs in India's court system. In parts of Kerala, these methods have continued to serve as a form of public announcement in local proceedings, especially where courts sought to ensure that residents were informed about the attachment of property. The practice, however, belongs to an earlier administrative age, when public proclamation by drumbeat or similar ritual was a practical means of reaching communities in the absence of mass media, digital records, and standardized notice systems.
Old Ritual, New Scrutiny
The 'tom-tom' and 'kinnam mutti vilambaram' are deeply embedded in the region's historical memory. They reflect a time when local authority was exercised through public proclamation, often in village settings where a formal written notice would not have been enough to alert all interested parties. Even after the colonial period, the custom remained in use in some courts as a supplementary method of informing the public about attachment proceedings, especially in cases where property rights and enforcement actions required broad notice.
But the persistence of the practice also made it vulnerable to criticism. Rights advocates have argued that such methods are archaic, inconsistent with contemporary standards of dignity and due process, and potentially exclusionary in a legal system that increasingly relies on written notices, publication requirements, and digital access. The campaign that led to the Rules Committee's decision appears to have framed the issue not merely as one of administrative efficiency, but as a matter of legal modernisation and civil rights.
The High Court's decision to remove the provision suggests an institutional recognition that procedural legitimacy now depends less on inherited custom and more on clarity, accessibility, and uniformity. In a state where courts already operate within a formalised legal framework, retaining a ritualised mode of public announcement may have seemed increasingly out of step with present-day practice.
Courts Shed Ancestral Forms
The change also highlights a broader pattern in Indian governance: the slow dismantling of inherited colonial and princely-era procedures that remain embedded in local administration long after their original purpose has faded. Legal systems often preserve old forms because they are familiar, and because reform can be delayed by habit, inertia, or the assumption that tradition itself carries authority. Yet traditions that once served a functional role can become anachronistic when the surrounding legal and social environment changes.
In this case, the issue is not merely ceremonial. Property attachment proceedings can have serious consequences for individuals and families, and the method of notice matters. A notice mechanism must be reliable, intelligible, and defensible if it is to withstand scrutiny in a rights-conscious legal order. The removal of the provision may therefore be read as an effort to align court procedure with contemporary expectations of fairness and administrative precision.
The decision may also resonate beyond Kerala. Across India, courts and local bodies continue to use a range of inherited practices that vary by region and institution. Some survive because they are seen as culturally rooted; others because they fill gaps in communication. But as courts increasingly digitise records and standardise service of notice, such customs are likely to face renewed examination.
For now, the Kerala High Court's Rules Committee has taken a clear step away from a practice that linked the present to a much older legal world. The change does not alter the substance of property attachment law, but it does alter the language of public notice. In doing so, it closes a small but telling chapter in the state's judicial history, where the beat of a drum and the striking of a vessel once stood in for the formal voice of the court.