Kerala High Court quashes State Bar Council notice to KHCAA President Yeshwanth Shenoy

The Kerala High Court on Friday set aside the order of a single judge that had refused to interfere with the disciplinary proceedings initiated by the Bar Council of Kerala (BCK) in 2023 against the incumbent President of the Kerala High Court Advocates' Association (KHCAA), Yeshwanth Shenoy. [Yeshwanth Shenoy v. The Bar Council of Kerala, Represented by the Hon. Secretary, Bar Council]

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.

A Division Bench of Justices SA Dharmadhikari and Syam Kumar VM quashed the show cause notice, noting that the contempt case inititated against Shenoy over the same incident had been quashed.

"In the light of exoneration of the appellant in the contempt case, where identical verbatim complaints were referred to the Hon’ble the Chief Justice and State Bar Council of Kerala, the issuance of a show cause notice and proceedings thereunder are absolutely unwarranted", the Court said.

In the order now set aside by the Division Bench, single-judge Justice TR Ravi had 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).

The Division Bench observed that when the complaint against Shenoy was initially made, a properly constituted Bar Council of Kerala was in place. However, subsequently, after the expiry of the extended term of the Bar Council, a special committee was required to be constituted in absence of elections. However, no such committee was formed.

Therefore, the disciplinary proceedings conducted by the Bar Council of Kerala after the expiry of the term of its members, cannot stand.

"The Bar Council of Kerala is not existing at this time and therefore, the Bar Council cannot proceed with the case, unless and until a duly elected and properly constituted committee is in place. So far as invoking of Rule 32 of the Rules of 2015 extended in terms of the entire members of the Bar Council of Kerala, is only for the specific purpose of completion of verification process which does not include disciplinary proceedings. It is a settled legal position that the rule cannot override the specific provisions of the Act. Therefore, the present Bar Council of Kerala is a body existing or continuing in violation of the statute," the Court explained.

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.

In his petition, Shenoy also claimed that details of a contempt case initiated against him were leaked to the media even before official service.

However, the single-judge dismissed Shenoy's petition holding 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. In this case, the single-judge failed to find any such violation.

The judge 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.

Shenoy then filed the present appeal challenging the single-judge's order.

The Division Bench concurred with Shenoy on the fact that the proceedings initiated by the Bar Council cannot be said to have been suo motu as it was based on a complaint received from a judge.

The Bench also agreed that Shenoy oought to have supplied recordings of court proceedings and that denying the same amounted to a miscarriage of justice.

"The appellant had raised a demand regarding supply of audio/visual recordings of the Court proceedings, where serious allegations were levelled against him, but the same were not supplied saying that the same is not available. That also amounts to miscarriage of justice so far as the High Court Rules provides for recording of the same. The appellant had made specific averments that he had not abused or used derogatory words in the Court which could have been proved, had the recordings been made available", the Bench said as it allowed Shenoy's appeal.

[Read Judgment]