Kerala High Court rejects BCI review plea on limits of State Bar Council powers after expiry of extended term

The Kerala High Court on Friday dismissed a plea filed by the Bar Council of India (BCI) to review a portion of a June 2025 judgment that quashed disciplinary proceedings against Kerala High Court Advocates' Association (KHCAA) President Yeshwanth Shenoy [Bar Council of India v Yeshwanth Shenoy & ors]..In particular, the BCI questioned the correctness of an observation that no properly constituted Kerala Bar Council existed after May 6, 2024, to continue disciplinary proceedings against Shenoy. The complaint against Shenoy in this matter had initially been lodged in February 2023, before the Kerala Bar Council's term expired. Its term came to an end on November 6, 2023, but was extended for six months by the BCI till May 6, 2024.In the June judgment, a Division Bench of the Court observed that after May 6, 2024, a special committee under Section 8A of the Advocates Act, 1961, should have been formed to perform the functions of the State Bar Council (since no such new body was formed by election). However, no special committee was formed. Consequently, the Court held that there was no properly constituted State Bar Council to continue the disciplinary proceedings against Shenoy. Even if the terms of all members of the State Bar Council had been extended beyond May 2024 under Rule 32 of the BCI Certificate and Place of Practice (Verification) Rules, 2015, their powers would only concern the verification process during lawyers' enrolments and not disciplinary proceedings, the Court had held in June. This was one of the grounds on which the disciplinary process against the KHCAA President was set aside. .The BCI's review petition stated that these observations would have grave implications on the institutional functioning of State Bar Councils, including their duties to oversee enrolment, verification, and disciplinary functions. It could adversely affect the legal profession at large, the BCI said. However, on Friday, a Bench of Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice Syam Kumar VM found no reason to review the June 2025 ruling. It held that the BCI's review petition could not be treated as a second opportunity to argue the case or re-evaluate the original judgment when there was no apparent error on the face of the record."The scope of review cannot be enlarged to such an extent, taking the review to be an appeal. The jurisdiction of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake and not to substitute a view / reasoning so taken in the order/judgment sought to be reviewed. Mere possibility of two different views cannot be a ground for review. On these grounds, the review petition cannot be entertained so as to re-appreciate or re-hear the entire issue which was the subject-matter of the original writ petition," the Court said..It also noted that the Supreme Court, in the case of Ajay Shankar Srivastava v. Bar Council of India, has already ruled that the constitution of a committee to oversee the lawyers' verification process should not be construed as an extension of the existing terms of Bar Councils..The disciplinary proceedings against Shenoy followed a heated exchange of words between him and retired Justice Mary Joseph, then a judge of the High Court.A show-cause notice was issued to him in February 2023, alleging violations of professional conduct and etiquette.Shenoy challenged the disciplinary action through a writ petition, which was initially dismissed by a single judge of the High Court.Aggrieved by this decision, Shenoy filed a writ appeal, which was allowed by a Division Bench on June 20, 2025. By its October 17 ruling, the Court has now refused to reconsider this ruling. .Advocate Rajit appeared for the BCI.Advocate Yeshwant Shenoy appeared in person.The Bar Council of Kerala was represented by advocate Pranoy K Kottaram..[Read Order]