Kerala High Court Quashes Disciplinary Proceedings Against KHCAA President Yeshwanth Shenoy

The disciplinary action stemmed from a courtroom altercation between Advocate Shenoy and then High Court judge, Justice Mary Joseph.

The Division Bench of Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice Syam Kumar VM allowed Shenoy’s appeal and quashed the show cause notice that had been issued to him by the Bar Council in 2023. The Court held, “we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge did not advert to the order passed in the contempt case, wherein the appellant has been fully exonerated and discharged of the similar allegations for which show cause notice has been issued by the State Bar Council of Kerala. The learned Single Judge has committed an error in not allowing the Writ Petition.”

Background

The controversy began following a verbal exchange between Shenoy and Justice Mary Joseph in open court. Subsequently, the Bar Council of Kerala issued a show cause notice to Shenoy, purporting to initiate disciplinary proceedings under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961.

While the BCK claimed that the action was taken suo motu, Shenoy contended that it was, in fact, triggered by a letter from Justice Joseph.

On May 2, Justice TR Ravi, while hearing Shenoy’s writ petition, upheld the Bar Council’s authority to issue the notice, stating that it acted within its statutory powers under the Advocates Act. The judge found no procedural violations or breaches of natural justice that would warrant judicial interference at that stage.

The Court also declined Shenoy’s requests for directions regarding alleged media leaks and access to video recordings of the courtroom incident, holding that such concerns should be addressed through appropriate administrative or legal forums.

Shenoy, thus filed an appeal before a Division Bench of the High Court.

Findings

The Court held that the show cause notice clearly referenced a complaint from the judge, meaning the action was not suo motu. Therefore, the Bar Council failed to follow the prescribed procedure under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, which requires a properly recorded “reason to believe” before referring the matter to a disciplinary committee.

The Bench noted that the term of the elected Bar Council of Kerala ended on November 6, 2023. Although the Bar Council of India extended its term by six months under Section 8 of the Advocates Act, the extension lapsed on May 6, 2024. After this, under Section 8A, a Special Committee should have been constituted but was not.

The Court emphasized that Rule 32 of the 2015 Verification Rules, invoked to justify continued functioning, cannot override the statutory requirement. The Court added, “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.”

Shenoy had sought audio/video recordings of the courtroom incident, which the High Court Rules require to be maintained. These were denied on the ground that they were “not available.” The Court said this denial amounted to a miscarriage of justice, especially since the recordings could have disproved the allegations.

The Bench noted that Shenoy had already been exonerated by a Division Bench in Contempt Case (Crl) No.2 of 2023 through a detailed judgment dated October 18, 2024. That case involved identical allegations arising from the same incident. The Court observed that the Bar Council could not override the judicial exoneration, and the learned Single Judge failed to consider this crucial fact due to a year-long delay in pronouncing the judgment (heard on June 4, 2024; delivered on May 2, 2025).

The Court further found that the Bar Council meeting held on February 11, 2023, to issue the show cause notice violated procedural rules. No proper notice of 10 days was given, and the meeting was not shown to be an “extraordinary” one requiring only 3 days’ notice. The haste in issuing the show cause notice, within just five days of the complaint, suggested a lack of due application of mind.

The Court added, “However, this Court, without going to the other aspects of the matter, comes to the conclusion that 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 Division Bench thus allowed his appeal, set aside the single judge’s ruling, and quashed the notice issued by the Bar Council.

Earlier, in 2024, Shenoy had written a letter to the Chief Justice of India seeking enquiry by the CBI against Justice Mary Joseph.

Cause Title: Yeshwanth Shenoy v. The Bar Council Of Kerala & Ors., [2025:KER:43755]

Appearance:

Respondents: Senior Advocates P.K. Suresh Kumar, N.N. Sugunapalan, Advocate Pranoy K. Kottaram