Can't Presume Bar Association Is Unaware Of Advocates Allegedly Misleading Court To Defreeze Bank Accounts: Kerala High Court

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M was considering a review petition filed by the Kerala High Court Advocates' Association (KHCAA) in suo motu judicial practice and procedure proceedings where it had earlier directed that no writ petition or similar plea seeking defreezing of bank accounts shall be entertained unless the Station House Officer (SHO) concerned is made a party respondent.

While considering the Review Petition, the Court has earlier directed the KHCAA to disclose steps taken against advocates accused of misleading the Court and making false representations in de-freezing cases.

The KHCAA in its said that it is strictly following its bylaws and regulations. It however said that in absence of any information officially received from the High Court regarding any instance in which its member advocate has misused their power and made false representations in relation to matters before the High Court, the Association is "unable at this stage to submit a report regarding any action taken". 

To this submission the court said:

"However, it cannot be denied that the advocates responsible for misleading the Court, which may amount to an act of contempt, are to be dealt with in accordance with law at an appropriate stage if so found liable. Steps in the said regard cannot be delayed. If the Bar Association is not aware of the advocates who have allegedly misused their position as an advocate, this Court shall furnish particulars of the matters in which such advocates have misused their power and had thus interfered with the administration of justice.

The direction to identify the Advocates responsible has proceeded on the assumption that, when the Association has filed an application urging that the identification by the SHO, independent of identification by the advocate in terms of Rule 76 of the Rules of the High Court of Kerala, 1971, be reviewed, the Association must at least be aware of the members responsible for such acts which had prompted this Court to issue such an order. We expected the Bar Association to at least conduct a basic enquiry in this regard to identify the individuals and not to leave it to the Court to make a reference of the names of such persons for cancellation of their membership and for informing the Bar Council of India of such acts. We cannot presume that the Bar Association is unaware of such facts; otherwise, no such application for review would have been filed". 

The bench thus said that it will also be open to the court concerned before "which the malpractice is revealed" to refer the matter for appropriate action to the Secretary of the Bar Council who shall treat the communication as a complaint and "take appropriate action in accordance with law". 

The court further directed that it would be open for the SHO, on getting an intimation from the Government Pleader to enquire about the identity and other relevant credentials of the writ petitioner whose account had is stated to have been frozen. It said that the report to be submitted to the Public Prosecutor/ Government Pleader must include details of such enquiry carried out by the SHO concerned. 

The Court also took note of the earlier direction by the Single Judge to underline that clandestine attempts had been made to unfreeze the bank accounts. 

"If the Court feels that for the purpose of proper disposal of the writ petition seeking unfreezing of the bank account preferred by the petitioner, the identity of the petitioner as well as his other credentials are also required to be gone into, it is open to the court to seek such details especially since clandestine attempts had been made to unfreeze the bank accounts which have been very articulately expressed by Justice M.A. Abdul Hakim in His Lordship's Order dated 10th December 2025 in W.P. (C) No. 43123 of 2025 as well as in the order dated 12.12.2025 in W.P. (C) No. 43642 of 2025," the court said. 

The court further said that it had proceeded on the basis that the bar association would ascertain whether the advocates appearing in the matters in which such defreezing orders were obtained, "are members of the Kerala High Court Advocates' Association".

It however noted that it appeared that this aspect had not been in addressed in the association's affidavit. On the KHCAA's affidavit the court said,

"We had further proceeded on the premise that the Advocates alleged of such malpractices are members of the Association, and accordingly, by our previous order, had directed the Bar Association to file an affidavit disclosing the steps taken against such Advocates...An Advocate is an officer of the Court, and the Court ordinarily relies upon the submissions and representations made by an Advocate without questioning his integrity, as it is expected that an Advocate would not misconduct himself in Court proceedings. However, it now appears that the Bar Association is unable to comment upon the Advocates responsible for such alleged malpractices". 

A Single Bench in an earlier order dated 10 December ordered mandatory impleadment of Local Station House Officer (SHO) in plea seeking de-freezing of accounts noting the increasing misuse of jurisdiction by false and forged cases. Subsequently

Subsequently, in a judicial practice proceedings the Court has ordered  that SHO shall file an affidavit verifying the petitioner's identity  in plea seeking de-freezing bank accounts. The Court had subsequently relaxed the requirement of affidavit from SHO while requirement of identification by SHO remained intact.

In its order Court further reaffirmed the authority of courts to independently verify the identity and credentials of petitioners in cases seeking de-freezing of bank accounts.

“The power of the Court to seek information regarding the writ petitioner or his credentials cannot be whittled down in any manner whatsoever. In view of the manner in which de-freezing orders are being obtained, it would be open to the Court to call for an independent report from the SHO or to require the presence of the writ petitioner, so as to ensure that the purity of the judicial process is maintained.” Court noted.

The matter has been adjourned to June 3, for further consideration.

Case Title: Kerala High Court Advocates Association (KHCAA) v Suo Motu Proceedings initiated by High Court and Others

Case No: RP 288/ 2026 in JPP 1/ 2026

Counsel for Review Petitioner: Santhosh Mathew (Sr.), Shinto Mathew Abraham, Arun Thomas, Veena Raveendran, Karthika Maria, Anil Sebastian Pulickel, Mathew Nevin Thomas, Karthika Rajagopal, Kurian Antony Mathew, Aparnna S, Adeen Nazar, Noel Ninan Ninan, Arun Joseph Mathew, Rohan Mathew

Counsel for Respondent: Nayanpally Ramola, Harikumar G