Kerala High Court Allows State Bar Council To Continue Disciplinary Proceedings Against KHCAA President Yeshwanth Shenoy

Suo motu contempt proceedings were initiated against the lawyer 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 last year.

The Bar Council of Kerala had also initiated suo motu proceedings alleging violation of Standards of Professional Conduct and Etiquette, based on the Judge's letter.

Shenoy on the other hand filed an in-house complaint against the Judge but the then Chief Justice decided not to proceed with the same.

Shenoy then challenged the State Bar Council's notice stating that if the action is based on a complaint, the Council could not have initiated a suo motu proceedings against him. He further alleged that the complaint was not in the prescribed format. The advocate further raised allegations that the disciplinary proceedings were a result of 'conspiracy to eliminate' his voice against corruption among State Law Officers.

Justice T. R. Ravi in his judgment observed that the Bar Council has no case that what is referred to in the proceedings is a 'complaint'. The State Bar Council had submitted before the Court that after receiving a letter from the former Judge, they held a meeting and it was unanimously decided to register a complaint. Following this, they sent the show cause notice to Shenoy and upon receiving his reply, a resolution was passed referring the matter to the Disciplinary Committee.

The Court said that to initiate suo motu disciplinary proceedings against an advocate, the only thing that needs to be considered is whether there was a “reason to believe” that he is guilty of professional or other misconduct, as prescribed under Section 35 of the Advocates Act.

It relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Bar Council of Maharashtra v M. V. Dabholkar (1976) which held that “reason to believe” is only a barrier against frivolous enquiries and is not a barrier to a formalized procedural roadblock.

The Court also noted that the issue has become “academic” as Shenoy had replied to the show cause notice and had also responded to the notice issued by the Disciplinary Committee.

Shenoy had also sought recordings of the court proceedings as mentioned in the former Judge's letter. The Court declined this prayer, stating there is no practice of recording court proceedings and no such recording is available with High Court.

Shenoy had also made allegations that the contents of the suo motu contempt proceedings were leaked by the High Court Registry, even before he got notice of the case. The judgment however mentions that the Registrar (Judicial) had conducted a discrete internal enquiry into the matter and it was found out that no suspicious activities or involvement of the High Court were found and the alleged leakage was not from the Registry.

Counsel for the Petitioner: Adv. Yeshwanth Shenoy (Party-in-person)

Counsel for the Respondent: Advocates Pranoy K. Kottaram, Sujin S., N. N. Sugunapalan, Sivaraman P. L., Grashious Kuriakose, P. K. Suresh Kumar

Case No: WP(C) 7660 of 2023

Case Title: Yeshwanth Shenoy v The Bar Council of Kerala and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 259