Kerala High Court Grants Leave To Advocates' Association To Seek Review Of Mandatory SHO Verification In Bank Account Defreezing Cases

The division bench comprising Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V M allowed the interlocutory application seeking leave/ permission for the Association to file the review.

The Court had directed that no writ petition or other plea seeking defreezing of bank accounts be entertained unless the Station House Officer (SHO) of the petitioner's jurisdictional police station is impleaded as a party respondent.

It had further directed that before passing any order in such matters, the Public Prosecutor must verify the identity of the petitioner through the SHO and ensure that an affidavit establishing the petitioner's identity is filed by the officer.

The KHCAA in the review petition, argues that the directive introduces a mandatory police-based verification requirement that overrides existing statutory procedures governing affidavits and filings.

It is submitted that the writ petitions are already accompanied by duly sworn affidavits authenticated under the Rules of the High Court of Kerala, 1971, and the Civil Rules of Practice, Kerala. These rules specify the authorities before whom affidavits may be sworn and provide safeguards for verifying the identity of the deponent.

It is further submitted that once an affidavit is sworn before an authorized official including advocates and judicial officers, the identity of the petitioner is deemed legally verified. It further notes that under the Electronic Filing Rules for Courts (Kerala), 2021, digital signatures, Aadhaar-based authentication, and OTP verification are recognized as valid forms of identification.

By mandating an additional SHO affidavit in every bank defreezing case, the Association claims, the Court has effectively diluted the statutory framework and cast doubt on the sanctity of affidavits authenticated under established rules.

The review petition also raises concerns about delays in urgent cases. According to the Association, freezing of bank accounts often disrupts business operations, salary payments, statutory dues, and even subsistence expenses. It argues that requiring prior police verification and an SHO affidavit in every such case could cause substantial delays, especially where administrative constraints affect prompt police response. The Association maintains that this requirement may impair the High Court's ability to grant timely interim relief under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The petitioner asserts that if changes to affidavit verification procedures were required, they should have been implemented through amendments to the relevant rules by the competent rule-making authority.

The matter is posted on 11 March for further consideration.

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

Case No: RP 230/ 2026 (Filing No.)

Counsel for Review Petitioner: 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 Roham Mathew, Santhosh Mathew (Sr.)

Counsel for Respondent: Nayanpally Ramola, Harikumar G