Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Kerala, Division Bench of Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. dismissed the review petition filed by the Bar Council of India challenging the order that confined the authority of the State Bar Council’s ad-hoc committee solely to completing the advocate verification process. The Court reaffirmed that such committees cannot exercise disciplinary powers once the elected council’s term has expired. Holding that no error apparent on the face of the record was shown, the Bench concluded that Rule 32 of the Bar Council of India Verification Rules, 2015, is limited to verification and election-related functions.

The case originated from disciplinary proceedings initiated by the Bar Council of Kerala against Advocate Yeshwanth Shenoy through a show cause notice dated February 14, 2023, alleging professional misconduct. The learned Single Judge of the High Court had upheld the validity of the notice, rejecting the advocate’s writ petition challenging it. Aggrieved by this, the first respondent filed a writ appeal, which was allowed by the Division Bench, setting aside both the Single Judge’s order and the impugned show cause notice.

In the writ appeal, the Court found that the disciplinary action was not in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961, and also held that the Bar Council of Kerala was not properly constituted at the time it continued to exercise disciplinary powers. The judgment noted that after the expiry of the Council’s term on November 6, 2023, and the subsequent six-month extension granted by the Bar Council of India, no Special Committee was formed as mandated under Section 8A of the Advocates Act.

Also Read: “Descriptive & Generic”: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Injunction on Use of ‘Metal Industries’ Trademark

The Bar Council of India subsequently filed a review petition, asserting that it was not heard before the impugned judgment was delivered and that the observations of the Division Bench regarding Rule 32 of the Bar Council of India Certificate and Place of Practice (Verification) Rules, 2015, affected the validity of the rule. The petitioner argued that Rule 32 permitted the continuation of a State Bar Council beyond its term for completing the verification process and that the Court’s findings were inconsistent with prior decisions, including Anil Kumar v. Bar Council of Kerala (2024:KER:63755).

The first respondent, appearing in person, opposed the petition, arguing that there was no error warranting review and that the Court’s previous conclusions were consistent with the law. He referred to the Bar Council of India’s own communication dated May 23, 2024, which clarified that the extension of a State Bar Council’s term was limited to completing the verification process and did not extend to disciplinary functions. The respondent further submitted that, since no Special Committee was constituted after the expiry of the Council’s term, the Kerala Bar Council lacked legal authority to continue disciplinary actions.

The Bench observed that the petition failed to establish any of the legal grounds for review and reiterated the settled position of law: “The scope of review cannot be enlarged to such an extent, taking the review to be an appeal. The jurisdiction of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake and not to substitute a view or reasoning so taken in the order/judgment sought to be reviewed.”

The Court observed that “the specific purpose of completion of the verification process does not include disciplinary proceedings.” The Bench held that the impugned judgment did not invalidate Rule 32 but merely clarified its limited scope, in line with the Bar Council of India’s own communications.

The Court also cited the Supreme Court’s judgment in Ajay Shankar Srivastava v. Bar Council of India (W.P. (Civil) No.82 of 2023), noting that “the present order for constituting the Committee in order to effectuate the process of verification shall not be in and of itself construed as a direction for extending the existing terms of the Bar Councils.”

The Bench also recorded that no procedural irregularity or violation of natural justice was apparent from the record that could justify interference. The Court stated that the Bar Council of India had ample opportunity to constitute a Special Committee under Section 8A but failed to do so and could not now claim prejudice from its own inaction. It also rejected the argument that the earlier judgment required review on the ground of non-hearing, stating that the interpretation of a statutory rule during adjudication does not necessitate prior notice to all statutory bodies concerned.

Also Read: Supreme Court Upholds Conviction for Kidnapping and Sexual Assault of Minor; Criticizes Routine Declaration of Witnesses as Hostile for Minor Inconsistencies

The Bench referred to the Supreme Court decisions in S. Bhagirathi Ammal v. Palani Roman Catholic Mission [(2009) 10 SCC 464] and State of West Bengal v. Kamal Sengupta [(2008) 8 SCC 612]. Quoting these precedents, the Bench recorded: “A decision or order cannot be reviewed merely because it is erroneous. In order to seek review, it has to be demonstrated that the order suffers from an error apparent on the face of record and not an error which is to be fished out and searched.”

The judgment stated: “In the considered opinion of this Court, none of the grounds available for successfully seeking review as recognized by Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC are made out in the present case.”

“In view of the aforementioned, no case is made out to review the judgment. The review petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.” It also ordered that all interlocutory applications connected with the case stood closed.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner: Sri. Rajit, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Yeshwanth Shenoy (Party-in-person), Sri. S. Sujin, Sri. Pranoy K. Kottaram, Sri. Arun Thomas, Smt. Veena Raveendran, Sri. Anil Sebastian Pulickel, Shri. Shinto Mathew Abraham, Smt. Leah Rachel Ninan, Shri. Mathew Nevin Thomas, Shri. Karthik Rajagopal, Shri. Kurian Antony Mathew, Smt. Aparnna S., Shri. Noel Ninan Ninan, Shri. Arun Joseph Mathew, Smt. Karthika Maria, and Shri. Santhosh Mathew, Senior Advocate.

Case Title: Bar Council of India v. Yeshwanth Shenoy & Others
Neutral Citation: 2025: KER:76860
Case Number: RP No. 827 of 2025 in WA No. 1043 of 2025
Bench: Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice Syam Kumar V.M.