Kerala High Court Dismisses BCI's Review Plea Against Order Limiting Power Of State Bar Council's Ad-Hoc Committee

The Division Bench of Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice Syam Kumar V. M., delivered the judgment. 

“No case for review is made out. Review petition fails and is accordingly dismissed” the bench orally stated while dismissing the review petition. 

The decision is in a review petition preferred by the Bar Council of India (BCI) seeking a review of the judgment of a co-ordinate Division Bench in Yeshwant Shenoy v. Bar Council of Kerala and Ors.

In this judgment, the Court had said that the present coram of the Bar Council of Kerala was a body existing or continuing in violation of law since the terms of its members had expired and thereafter, no new election was carried and no Special Committee was constituted by the BCI as per Section 8A of the Advocates Act, 1961.

BCI filed the review petition seeking clarification on the observation that the Ad Hoc Committee whose term was extended invoking Rule 32 of the Bar Council of India a Certificate and Place of Practice (Verification) Rules, 2015 is only for the purpose of verification alone.

BCI has further contended that the Court erred in interpreting the Rule 32 as excluding disciplinary powers. It also alleged that the judgment was rendered without prior notice to the BCI. 

The respondent pointed out that the Rule 32 permits extensions only for verification purposes and not for disciplinary functions. It was further submitted that no Special Committee was constituted under Section 8A after the Bar Council of Kerala's term expired and hence the council lacked any legal authority to continue disciplinary proceedings. 

The Court dismissed the revision petition by stating that the scope of review is confined to correcting errors apparent on the face of the record and not for re-arguing the case. The Court noted that none of grounds under Order XLVII Rule 1 of CPC were made out, and emphasised that a review cannot be used as an appeal in disguise. 

"The jurisdiction of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake and not to substitute a view / reasoning so taken in the order/judgment sought to be reviewed. Mere possibility of two different views cannot be a ground for review. On these grounds, the review petition cannot be entertained so as to re-appreciate or re-hear the entire issue which was the subject-matter of the original writ petition." the bench observed.  

Background

Suo motu contempt proceedings were initiated against the KHCAA President, after former High Court Justice Mary Joseph filed a complaint alleging that he shouted and harassed her while he appeared before her court and even stated that he would see that the Judge is expelled from the seat. The proceedings were closed by a Division Bench. 

Adv. Yeshwant Shenoy thereafter preferred a writ petition challenging the suo moto disciplinary proceedings initiated against him by the Bar Council of Kerala (BCK) in light of the aforesaid incident. However, the Single Judge dismissed the writ petition and permitted the State Bar Council to continue disciplinary proceedings.

A writ appeal was preferred against the Single Bench decision. The Division Bench allowed the writ appeal and set aside the disciplinary proceeding. The Division Bench found that the suo moto proceedings initiated by the BCK were not in accordance with the procedure laid down under Section 35 of the Advocates' Act, 1961.

The Division Bench in the writ appeal found that the present BCK is a body existing or continuing in violation of the statute as its term came to end on 06.11.2023. Thereafter, the Bar Council of India (BCI) extended the term by 6 months up to 06.05.2024 by virtue of the proviso to Section 8A of the Act. 

It was also found that Rule 32 of the Bar Council of India Certificate and Place of Practice (Verification) Rules, 2015 cannot be invoked in the present case since it is only for the specific purpose of completion of the verification process, which does not include disciplinary proceedings.

The review petition was preferred by the BCI stating that the writ appeal was passed without hearing it and seeking a clarification that the committee constituted under Rule 32 is not only for the purpose of completion of the verification process.

Case Title: Bar Council of India v. Yeshwanth Shenoy

Case No: RP 827/2025 in WA 1043/ 2025

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 655

Counsel for Petitioner: Rajit

Counsel for Respondent: Yeshwant Shenoy (Party in Person), Arun Thomas, S Sujin, Veena Raveendran, Anil Sebastian Pulickel, Shinto Mathew Abraham, Leah Rachel Ninan, Mathew Nevin Thomas, karthik Venugopal, Jurian Antony Mathew, Aparnna S, Noel Ninan Ninan, Arun Joseph Mathew, Karthika Maria, M U Vijayalakshmi (BCK), Pranoy K Kottaram, Harikumar G, N N Sugunapalan (Sr.)