Disciplinary proceedings against advocates require statutory compliance; if procedural requirements are not met, proceedings are invalidated. Show cause notices can be quashed based on prior exoneration in similar matters.

Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J.

The present intra-court appeal filed under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958 assails the judgment dated 02.05.2025 passed in WP(C) No.7660/2023, whereby the learned Single Judge has disposed of the Writ Petition granting liberty to the appellant to raise all contentions on the merits of the issue available to him before the Disciplinary Committee.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant had filed a petition challenging the show cause notice at Ext.P1 dated 14.02.2023, whereby suo moto action alleging professional misconduct against the appellant for violation of standards of professional conduct and etiquette was issued. The appellant has filed the Writ Petition praying for the following reliefs:

“(i) To quash 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 respondent No.2 to inquire / investigate and fix responsibility on the person responsible for having leaked the court documents to a 3^rd 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.

(v) Pass such other further order/orders as this Hon’ble court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

3. The appellant is an Advocate enrolled in the Bar Council of Kerala and is practising before the High Court of Kerala and in other courts across the country. He happens to be the President of the Kerala High Court Bar Association. The show cause notice has been issued alleging violation of standards of ofÏcial conduct and etiquette referring to the letter dated 09.02.2023 from the learned Judge of this Court, alleging that the appellant had shouted at the court, harassed the court and compelled this Court to record his submissions. The letter also says that the appellant repeated the submissions in a louder voice and even stated that he would see that the Judge is expelled from the seat.

4. Points which emerged for consideration before the learned Single Judge are:

1. Whether the State Bar Council can initiate suo moto action on professional or other misconduct?

2. The expression ‘reason to believe’ is employed in Section 35 of the Advocate’s Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1961) only for the limited purpose of using it as a filter for excluding frivolous complaints against Advocates.

3. The requirement of ‘reason to believe’ cannot be converted into a formalized procedural road block, it being essentially a barrier against frivolous enquiries.

5. The learned Single Judge, while disposing of the Writ Petition came to the conclusion that no illegality is found in issuance of Ext.P1 notice by the Bar council of Kerala and the prayer to quash the same is rejected. It is also observed that since the appellant has already submitted his reply to Ext.P1 show cause notice and has also responded to the notice issued by the Disciplinary Committee, the issue has become academic, so to speak. Sri.Yeshwanth Shenoy, Advocate, appears in person and contended that the issues raised in the Writ Petition have not been considered and dealt at all by the learned Single Judge. Various issues were raised at the time of submissions, but all those have been ignored and not considered at all. The appellant would submi