Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
T.R. RAVI, J
Yeshwanth Shenoy, S/o. V.L. Shenoy – Appellant
Versus
Bar Council Of Kerala, Represented By The Hon.Secretary, Bar Council, Bar Council Bhavan, High Court Of Kerala Campus – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(T.R. RAVI, J.)
The writ petition has been filed praying for the following reliefs:
"(i) To quash the Ext.P1 notice issued as being issued in violation of the statutory requirements under the Bar Council Rules and Regulations. Or in the Alternative
(ii) direct the Respondent No.1 to comply with the statutory requirements on receipt of complaints against advocates in accordance with the Rules and Regulations of the Bar Council.
(iii) Direct the Respondent No.2 to inquire/ investigate and fix responsibility on the person responsible for having leaked the court documents to a 3rd person before the same even being served on the alleged contemnor.
(iv) Declare that the audio video recording of this Hon'ble Court be supplied to any interested person on the payment of reasonable fees for the same."
2. The petitioner is an advocate enrolled with the Bar Council of Kerala and practising before the High Court of Kerala and in other courts across the country. On 14.2.2023, the Bar Council of Kerala issued Ext.P1 notice, which is styled as a show cause notice in a suo motu case, alleging violation of Standards of Professional Conduct and Etiquette. The notice refers to a letter dated 9.2.2
The Bar Council can initiate suo motu disciplinary proceedings against advocates for misconduct, and the procedural requirements under Section 35 of the Advocates Act are not overly restrictive.
Professional misconduct by Advocate – Disposal of a complaint received by State Bar Council under Section 35 within a period of one year from date of receipt of such complaint is mandatory.
Only parties with a direct legal relationship with an advocate can file complaints of professional misconduct against them under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961.
The Bar Council lacks the authority to impose interim suspension on an Advocate pending disciplinary proceedings, as per the Advocates Act, 1961, which mandates adherence to due process and principle....
(1) Professional misconduct by Advocate – Ordinarily, existence of a jural relationship between complainant and Advocate concerned is a precondition for invocation of disciplinary jurisdiction on the....
The Bar Council's authority to refer complaints for inquiry under Section 35 of the Advocates Act is affirmed, emphasizing the need for proper inquiry into allegations of misconduct.
The court considered the futility of continuing disciplinary proceedings against an advocate due to age and inactive practice, leading to the quashing of the notice of hearing.
The court affirmed that the Bar Council's prima facie opinion is not subject to routine judicial review, emphasizing the need for proper inquiry by the Disciplinary Committee.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
