The Supreme Court on Tuesday issued notice on an appeal filed by the Bar Council of India (BCI) challenging a Kerala High Court judgment that halted disciplinary proceedings against Kerala High Court Advocates’ Association President, Yeshwanth Shenoy.
A Bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant, sitting alongside Justice Joymalya Bagchi, sought responses in the matter, marking the beginning of the Supreme Court’s scrutiny of a ruling that has raised important questions about the validity of disciplinary actions taken by Bar Councils functioning beyond their elected tenure.
The controversy originated from a complaint submitted by former Kerala High Court judge Justice Mary Joseph, alleging that Shenoy had shouted at and harassed her during court proceedings, even claiming he would “see that the Judge was expelled from the seat.”
Acting on the Judge’s communication, the Bar Council of Kerala initiated disciplinary proceedings against Shenoy for alleged breach of the Standards of Professional Conduct and Etiquette under the Advocates Act.
Separately, in March 2023, the Kerala High Court initiated suo motu criminal contempt proceedings against Shenoy based on the same allegations. However, a Division Bench later closed the contempt case, observing procedural irregularities in its initiation.
Shenoy approached the High Court questioning the show cause notice dated February 14, 2023, contending that if the proceedings were based on a complaint, they could not be treated as suo motu. The complaint did not comply with the prescribed statutory format, making the proceedings invalid.
A Single Judge rejected his petition and allowed the State Bar Council to proceed with its inquiry.
On June 20, 2025, the High Court’s Division Bench overturned the Single Judge’s order and quashed the notice, holding the records clearly showed reliance on a complaint dated February 9, 2023, contradicting the Bar Council’s claim of suo motu initiation. The State Bar Council’s term, including its extension, ended on May 6, 2024. After this date, it lacked jurisdiction to continue disciplinary proceedings. In the absence of a duly constituted elected Council or a Special Committee under Section 8A of the Advocates Act, the disciplinary process could not legally continue.
The Bench rejected reliance on Rule 32 of the BCI Certificate and Place of Practice (Verification) Rules, 2015, clarifying that the rule only permitted continuation of the verification process, not disciplinary action. Since the suo motu contempt proceedings on the same allegations had been closed, the Bench held that the matter could not be re-agitated through disciplinary action.
The BCI’s review petition met a similar fate on October 17, 2025, with the High Court ruling that none of the grounds under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC were satisfied and no “error apparent on the face of the record” was demonstrated.
Challenging both the Division Bench order and the dismissal of its review petition, the BCI has filed the present appeal before the Supreme Court. The case has been registered as:
Case Details
Bar Council of India v. Yeshwanth Shenoy
Diary No. 62809 / 2025
Read More: Avail Statutory Appeal Remedy | Delhi High Court Refuses to Interfere with Rs. 9.60 Crore GST Demand
