BCI Seeks Review Of Kerala HC Order Confining Power Of State Bar Council's Ad-Hoc Committee To Completion Of Verification Process

The Bar Council of India (BCI) has preferred a petition before the Kerala High Court seeking a review of the judgment of the Division Bench in Yeshwant Shenoy v. Bar Council of Kerala and Ors. The Court had set aside the disciplinary proceedings initiated against Adv. Yeshwant Shenoy (appellant) by the State Bar Council, stating that it had no powers to initiate such proceedings.In the judgment, the Court said that the present coram of the Bar Council of Kerala was a body existing or continuing in violation of law since the terms of its members had expired and thereafter, no new election was carried and no Special Committee was constituted by the BCI as per Section 8A of the Advocates Act, 1961. It was also observed in the judgment that the extension of term of the members of the State Bar Council by the BCI invoking Rule 32 of the Bar Council of India Certificate and Place of Practice (Verification) Rules, 2015 is only for the specific purpose of completion of verification process which does not include disciplinary proceedings. When the matter came before the Court for consideration on Tuesday (July 8), the counsel for the BCI submitted that he is seeking a clarification on the observation made in the judgment, which leads to the conclusion that the Ad Hoc Committee is only for the purpose of verification alone. The BCI also submitted that there is an urgency in hearing the matter since enrolments are affected. However, the Division Bench of Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice Syam Kumar V. M. orally observed that the observation in the judgment is only with respect to whether the Bar Council had disciplinary powers as of the date of initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the appellant. The Bench refused to accept that there was urgency in the matter and posted it for hearing next week.BackgroundSuo motu contempt proceedings were initiated against the KHCAA President, Adv. Yeshwant Shenoy, after former High Court Justice Mary Joseph filed a complaint alleging that he shouted and harassed her while he appeared before her court and even stated that he would see that the Judge is expelled from the seat. The proceedings were closed by a Division Bench last year.Adv. Yeshwant Shenoy thereafter preferred a writ petition challenging the suo moto disciplinary proceedings initiated against him by the Bar Council of Kerala (BCK) in light of the aforesaid incident. However, the Single Judge dismissed the writ petition and permitted the State Bar Council to continue disciplinary proceedings.Subsequently, a writ appeal was preferred against the Single Bench decision. The Division Bench allowed the writ appeal and set aside the disciplinary proceedings in view of several factors. The Division Bench found that the suo moto proceedings initiated by the BCK were[ not in accordance with the procedure laid down under Section 35 of the Advocates' Act, 1961. It was also found that the writ petition ought to have been allowed in view of the closure of contempt proceedings by the Division Bench. Moreover, the Court found that the non-supply of audio/visual recordings of the Court proceedings wherein the alleged incident occurred amounted to a miscarriage of justice.The Division Bench that decided the writ appeal also found that the present BCK is a body existing or continuing in violation of the statute. The Court found that the term of the Bar Council came to an end on 06.11.2023. Thereafter, the Bar Council of India (BCI) extended the term by 6 months up to 06.05.2024 by virtue of the proviso to Section 8A of the Act. Thereafter, as per Section 8A of the Act, a special Committee had to have been formed by BCI. However, no such committee was formed. It was also found that Rule 32 of the Bar Council of India Certificate and Place of Practice (Verification) Rules, 2015 cannot be invoked in the present case since it is only for the specific purpose of completion of the verification process, which does not include disciplinary proceedings.Thereafter, a review petition was preferred by the BCI stating that the writ appeal was passed without hearing it and seeking a clarification that the committee constituted under Rule 32 is not only for the purpose of completion of the verification process.Case Title: Bar Council of India v. Yeshwanth ShenoyCase No: RP 827/2025 in WA 1043/ 2025

BCI Seeks Review Of Kerala HC Order Confining Power Of State Bar Council's Ad-Hoc Committee To Completion Of Verification Process

K. Salma Jennath

Tags