Kerala High Court Upholds Bar Council's Power to Issue Suo Motu Show Cause Notice to Advocate

Ernakulam: The Kerala High Court, in a significant judgment, has upheld the Bar Council of Kerala's authority to issue a suo motu show cause notice to an advocate for alleged professional misconduct based on "reason to believe," clarifying that this standard serves as a filter against frivolous inquiries rather than a formal procedural roadblock. Justice T.R. Ravi dismissed a writ petition filed by Advocate Yeshwanth Shenoy challenging such a notice, allowing disciplinary proceedings to continue.

The Court, however, stipulated that its findings on the validity of the show cause notice would not prejudice the petitioner's right to contest the merits of the allegations before the Bar Council's Disciplinary Committee.

Case Background: Advocate Challenges Bar Council's Action

Advocate Yeshwanth Shenoy , practicing before the Kerala High Court, filed WP(C) No.7660 of 2023 seeking to quash a show cause notice (Ext.P1) dated February 14, 2023, issued by the Bar Council of Kerala. The notice, initiated suo motu, stemmed from a letter by a sitting High Court Judge alleging that Shenoy had shouted at, harassed the Court, and threatened the Judge during proceedings. The Bar Council proposed action under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961.

Shenoy also sought an inquiry into the alleged leak of court documents related to separate contempt proceedings against him to a media house before he was served, and requested access to audio-video recordings of the concerned court proceedings.

Petitioner's Contentions

Advocate Shenoy , appearing in person, argued: * The Bar Council's suo motu action was improperly based on the Judge's letter, which he contended did not meet the statutory requirements of a formal complaint. * There were procedural irregularities in the Bar Council's decision-making process, including insufficient time for convening the meeting that decided to issue the notice. * The requirement to call for his comments before issuing the show cause notice was not met. * He alleged the disciplinary proceedings were part of a "conspiracy" and "witch hunt." * He insisted on an inquiry into the document leak and the provision of court recordings.

Respondents' Stance

The Bar Council of Kerala (Respondent 1) , represented by Senior Advocate Sri P.K. Suresh Kumar, contended: * The writ petition against a mere show cause notice was not maintainable. * The Bar Council possesses the power to initiate suo motu proceedings under Section 35 of the Advocates Act if it has "reason to believe" an advocate is guilty of misconduct. * The Judge's letter formed the basis for this "reason to believe," and the petitioner had already submitted his reply to the notice. * Citing N.G. Dastane vs Shrikant S. Shivde , it was argued that "reason to believe" acts as a filter for frivolous complaints, and the Bar Council has a duty to refer genuine matters to its Disciplinary Committee. * Relying on The Secretary, Ministry of Defence & Ors. v. Prabash Chandra Mirdha , it was submitted that a show cause notice does not typically give rise to a cause of action for a writ petition.

The Registrar-General, High Court of Kerala (Respondent 2) , represented by Senior Counsel Sri N.N. Sugunapalan , submitted: * Audio-visual recordings of the specified court proceedings were not available as the video conferencing applications used at the time did not have a recording feature, and there was no general practice of recording proceedings without specific orders. * An internal inquiry conducted by the Registrar (Judicial) found no evidence of court documents being leaked from the High Court Registry.

Court's Analysis and Key Legal Principles

Justice T.R. Ravi delved into Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961, which empowers a State Bar Council to refer a case of professional or other misconduct by an advocate to its disciplinary committee "where on receipt of a complaint or otherwise a State Bar Council has reason to believe" such misconduct occurred.

The Court emphasized key legal principles from Supreme Court precedents:

* " Reason to Believe" as a Filter: Citing N.G. Dastane , the Court reiterated that the "reason to believe" requirement is "only for the limited purpose of using it as a filter for excluding frivolous complaints against Advocates."

* Not a Formalised Roadblock: Referencing Bar Council of Maharashtra v. M.V. Dabholkar (1976) , the Court noted, "The requirement of ‘reason to believe’ cannot be converted into a formalised procedural roadblock, it being essentially a barrier against frivolous enquiries." The resolution to refer implies the Bar Council had such reason.

* Suo Motu Powers: The phrase "or otherwise" in Section 35(1) grants the Bar Council wide latitude to initiate proceedings even without a formal complaint.

The Court observed: > "A reading of the provisions of the Advocates Act and the Bar Council of India Rules would show that the proceedings can be initiated either by placing the complaint itself before the Disciplinary Committee or by a suo motu reference by the State Bar Council to the Disciplinary Committee."

The Court also noted that allegations of mala fides against individuals not party to the writ petition would not be examined.

Court's Decision on Prayers

Quashing of Show Cause Notice (Ext.P1): The Court found "no illegality in the issuance of Ext.P1 notice by the Bar Council of Kerala," and rejected the prayer to quash it. It was also noted that since the petitioner had already replied to the notice and responded to the Disciplinary Committee, the issue had "become academic, so to speak."

Audio-Video Recording: This prayer could not be granted as the High Court Registry confirmed that "no such recording is available."

Inquiry into Document Leak: The judgment acknowledged the High Court Registry's report of an internal inquiry which found no leak from its end. No further directions for inquiry were issued.

Final Order and Implications

The writ petition was disposed of with the following directions: * The Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of Kerala may continue the proceedings against Advocate Yeshwanth Shenoy from the stage at which they were interdicted by interim orders in the writ petition. * The Court’s findings regarding the validity of the show cause notice will not prejudice or affect the petitioner's contentions on the merits of the alleged misconduct before the Disciplinary Committee.

This judgment reinforces the statutory powers of the Bar Council in initiating disciplinary proceedings against advocates and clarifies the threshold of "reason to believe" required for such actions. The disciplinary proceedings against Advocate Shenoy will now proceed before the Bar Council's Disciplinary Committee, where he will have the opportunity to defend himself against the allegations on merits.