The Kerala High Court has ruled that the State Bar Council can continue with the disciplinary proceedings against Yeshwanth Shenoy, President of the Kerala High Court Advocates’ Association (KHCAA), for alleged misconduct in court.
The matter began when former High Court Judge Mary Joseph submitted a complaint against Shenoy, accusing him of shouting and harassing her during a court appearance. She also alleged that Shenoy claimed he would have her removed from the bench. Based on this complaint, suo motu contempt proceedings were earlier initiated but later closed by a Division Bench.
Read also: Kerala High Court: Set-Off Period Cannot Be Considered for Remission Calculation
Simultaneously, the Bar Council of Kerala began its own suo motu proceedings, alleging that Shenoy’s conduct violated professional standards and legal etiquette, relying on the contents of the judge’s complaint letter.
In response, Shenoy filed an in-house complaint against the Judge. However, the then Chief Justice decided not to take further action on that complaint.
Shenoy then contested the disciplinary action taken by the Bar Council, arguing that the Council had no power to start suo motu proceedings unless there was a proper complaint in the prescribed format. He also alleged that the action against him was part of a conspiracy to silence his voice against alleged corruption among state law officers.
“The Bar Council has no case that what is referred to in the proceedings is a complaint,” noted Justice T. R. Ravi in his judgment.
However, the Bar Council clarified that after receiving the Judge’s letter, it convened a meeting and unanimously resolved to treat the letter as a complaint. A show-cause notice was then issued to Shenoy, and following his reply, the matter was forwarded to the Disciplinary Committee.
The Court stated that according to Section 35 of the Advocates Act, to initiate disciplinary action, the only requirement is that there must be “reason to believe” the advocate has committed professional or other misconduct.
Quoting the Supreme Court’s decision in Bar Council of Maharashtra v. M. V. Dabholkar (1976), the Court emphasized:
“Reason to believe is only a barrier against frivolous enquiries and is not a procedural hurdle to start formal proceedings.”
It also observed that the issue had become “academic” since Shenoy had already responded to the show-cause notice and the Disciplinary Committee’s proceedings.
Shenoy had further requested access to recordings of the court proceedings mentioned in the Judge’s letter. The High Court denied this request, noting:
“There is no system of recording proceedings in the High Court, and hence no such recordings exist.”
Shenoy also alleged that information about the contempt proceedings was leaked by the High Court Registry before he officially received the notice. However, the Registrar (Judicial) carried out a discreet internal enquiry and concluded that there was no suspicious activity or any leak from the Registry.
“No evidence was found to suggest any involvement of the High Court Registry in the alleged leak,” the judgment clarified.
With these observations, the Court upheld the authority of the State Bar Council to move forward with its disciplinary inquiry against Shenoy.
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
