Kerala High Court permits Bar Council to proceed against KHCAA President Yeshwanth Shenoy

The Kerala High Court on Friday refused to interfere with the disciplinary proceedings initiated by the Bar Council of Kerala (BCK) against Kerala High Court Advocates' Association (KHCAA) President Yeshwanth Shenoy in 2023 [Yeshwanth Shenoy v. The Bar Council of Kerala]..The BCK had initiated disciplinary action following a heated exchange of words between Shenoy and Justice Mary Joseph, then a judge of the High Court. .Single-judge Justice TR Ravi observed that the show cause notice issued to Shenoy by the Bar Council of Kerala was within its statutory power under Section 35 (punishment of advocates for misconduct) of the Advocates Act, 1961 (the Act)."In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above judgments, I do not find any illegality in the issuance of Ext.P1 notice by the Bar Council of Kerala, and the prayer to quash the same is rejected. Since the petitioner has already submitted his reply to Ext.P1 and has also responded to the notice issued by the Disciplinary Committee, the issue has become academic, so to speak," the Judge added..The Court also declined his prayer for action against the High Court registry for allegedly leaking court documents to a media organisation. It found no merit in the Shenoy's arguments regarding procedural violations or confidentiality breaches..After the incident in Justice Joseph's courtroom, Shenoy was sent a notice by BCK. While the notice stated that the disciplinary action was initiated suo motu by BCK, Shenoy alleged that it was initiated based on a letter sent by Justice Joseph.Shenoy challenged the proceedings in a writ petition and sought to quash the disciplinary proceedings on the ground that BCK had acted without jurisdiction and had relied on unverified media reports.Shenoy further claimed he was not served with the complaint on time and alleged that contents of a contempt case initiated against him were leaked to the media even before official service.He sought a High Court-ordered inquiry into the alleged leak and also requested that court audio-video recordings be made available to any interested person on payment of a reasonable fee.Shenoy argued that BCK could not treat the judge's letter as a complaint and still term the proceedings as 'suo motu'.He submitted that BCK had violated statutory procedures by issuing the notice without formally receiving a valid complaint and that the Council’s meeting and deliberations were procedurally defective..However, BCK contended that it had received the judge's letter on February 9, 2023, and convened a meeting on February 11, 2023. It was at this meeting that it unanimously resolved to initiate proceedings and seek Shenoy's remarks.After receiving Shenoy's reply, the matter was referred to the Disciplinary Committee under Section 35 of the Act.A fresh notice was later issued in the prescribed format and proceedings were stayed due to interim orders in the writ petition.The Registrar General of the High Court produced an internal inquiry report which said that no evidence of leak or misconduct by the registry staff was found.The Registrar also clarified that the High Court does not record court proceedings by default and the applications used (Google Meet, V-Consol) during the relevant hearings had no recording capability..The Court cited a host of precedents and observed that the State Bar Council has the authority to initiate suo motu proceedings for professional or other misconduct.Emphasising on the limited function of the phrase 'reason to believe' in Section 35 of the Advocates Act, the Court also clarified that the statutory requirement under the said provision is not meant to be a rigid procedural formality but a safeguard against frivolous complaints..The Court held that the legality of the disciplinary process could not be questioned at the threshold unless there was a clear violation of statutory procedure or principles of natural justice.It also declined to issue directions regarding the alleged leak or access to video recordings, stating that such matters were better left to be handled administratively or through appropriate legal channels..Accordingly, the Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the initiation of the disciplinary proceedings by the Bar Council of Kerala..The incident with Justice Mary Joseph had also resulted in the initiation of contempt of court proceedings against Shenoy. Those proceedings were closed by the High Court in October last year..Advocate Yeshwanth Shenoy appeared in person.Bar Council of Kerala was represented by Senior Advocate PK Suresh Kumar assisted by advocate Pranoy K Kottaram.The High Court Registrar was represented by Senior Advocate NN Sugunapalan assisted by advocate Sujin S..[Read Judgment]