Account Defreeze Cases | SHO Verification Not Mandatory, Court May Seek Report To Confirm Party's Identity: Kerala High Court In Review Plea

The Kerala High Court on Wednesday (June 3) allowed a plea by the Kerala High Court Advocates' Association (KHCAA) seeking to review a judgment that mandated the SHO (Station House Officers) concerned to file affidavits confirming identity of the petitioners in cases seeking defreezing of bank accounts.When the matter came up for consideration before the Division Bench of Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M., Advocate Peeyus A. Kottam, KHCAA President, submitted that the matter can be disposed of by confirming the observations made in paragraphs 11 to 13 of the interim order passed on March 25.In paragraph 11, the Court had observed that its power to seek information regarding the writ petitioner or his credentials cannot be whittled down. It had noted the clandestine manner in which de-freezing orders had been obtained by litigants and added that 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.In paragraph 12, the Court had also clarified the court concerned would have the option to refer to the Bar Council Secretary where any malpractice on the side of advocates is revealed. On receipt of the communication, the Secretary would treat the same as a complaint and take action in accordance with law.Lastly, in paragraph 13, the Court had recorded thus:“We had vide our order dated 25.02.2026 modified our earlier order dated 13.02.2026 which held that the filing of affidavit by the Station House Officer shall not be necessary. It is hereby further clarified that it shall be open to the court concerned if it deems fit and proper in the facts to call for a further report from the SHO concerned if the circumstances so warrant.”For context, the High Court had, on February 13, held 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; further an affidavit must be filed by the SHO confirming the proper identity of the writ petitioner.Thereafter, on February 25, the Court had ordered that filing of the affidavit by State House Officer (SHO) shall not be necessary for the time being. "As an interim measure, the filing of affidavit by the Station House Officer shall not be necessary. The order dated 13.02.2026 in J.P.P.No.1 of 2026 stands modified to the aforesaid extent," Court had said. BackgroundNoting increasing misuse of jurisdiction by false and forged cases, a Single Bench had directed the Registry to ensure impleadment of Station House Officers of the police stations having jurisdiction over the area of residence of the petitioners that prefer pleas seeking de-freezing of their accounts. This was challenged in writ appeal and upheld by the Division Bench as well.Subsequently, a suo motu judicial practice and procedure proceedings was initiated by the Court. In the JPP judgment, along with the afore direction, the Court had also ordered that an affidavit must be filed by the SHO confirming the proper identity of the writ petitioner.This was challenged by the KHCAA in the present review proceedings. The Court then went on to pass an interim order whereby it took away the mandate of filing of affidavit by the SHO. Later, in its March 25 order, it was clarified that the courts considering similar pleas for defreezing accounts would have the option to direct the SHO for reports to verify the identity and credentials of petitioners.Since the Court was in agreement with the KHCAA that the earlier direction can be confirmed to disposed of the plea, it went to allow the review petition.Case Title: Kerala High Court Advocates Association (KHCAA) v. Suo Motu Proceedings initiated by High Court and othersCase No: RP 288/2026 in JPP 1/2026Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 306Counsel 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, Peeyus A. KottamCounsel for respondent: Nayanpally Ramola, Harikumar G.Click to Read/Download Judgment

Account Defreeze Cases | SHO Verification Not Mandatory, Court May Seek Report To Confirm Party's Identity: Kerala High Court In Review Plea

K. Salma Jennath

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Account Defreeze Cases | SHO Verification Not Mandatory, Court May Seek Report To Confirm Party's Identity: Kerala High Court In Review Plea

K. Salma Jennath

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers