The Bar Council can initiate disciplinary action based on a reasonable belief of wrongdoing or a formal complaint without infringing on an advocate's rights until a final order is made.

JUDGMENT

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 9.2.2023, from a learned Judge of this Court, alleging that the petitioner had shouted at the Court, harassed the Court, and compelled the Court to record his submission. The letter also says that the petitioner repeated the submissions in a louder voice and even stated that he would see that the Judge is expelled from the seat. The notice directs the petitioner to show cause within two weeks from the receipt of the notice as to why action should not be taken against him under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961 .

3. The petitioner states that he had filed an in-house complaint against the Judge before the Hon'ble Chief Justice of Kerala and that the learned Judge had also written to the Hon'ble Chief Justice alleging that the petitioner had committed contempt of court. The petitioner sent Ext.P2 letter to the Bar Council requesting a copy of the letter received from the learned Judge, and it is stated in the writ petition that no copy was served on him till the filing of the writ petition. The petitioner submits that a suo motu action means an absence of a complainant/interested party, and if the action is based on a complaint, it cannot be treated as a suo motu action. It is contended that the Bar Council has not complied with the Rules that need to be followed on receipt of a complaint, before proceeding to issue a show cause notice. By Ext.P3, the petitioner has requested the Registrar General of this Court for a copy of the audio-video recording of the court proceedings mentioned in Ext.P1, which is also stated not to have been received.

4. The petitioner has stated that he had filed W.P © No.6912 of 2023, alleging that the number of cases listed before the learned Judge who has sent the letter dated 9.2.2023 to the Bar Council, has been restricted. It is stated that unknown to the petitioner, suo motu proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 were initiated against the petitioner, and even before the notice of the case was served on the petitioner, the contents of the same were made available to the 3^rd respondent, which is a Private Limited Company in the business of law reporting. The petitioner seeks an inquiry into the leaking of the documents by the Registry of this Court. The petitioner also contends that the complaint from the learned Judge