The Kerala High Court on Friday dismissed a review petition filed by the Bar Council of India (BCI) challenging a portion of its June 2025 judgment that had quashed disciplinary proceedings against Kerala High Court Advocates’ Association (KHCAA) President Yeshwanth Shenoy. The Court reaffirmed that no properly constituted State Bar Council existed in Kerala after May 6, 2024, and therefore, the disciplinary proceedings initiated against Shenoy could not legally continue.
The Division Bench comprising Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice Syam Kumar VM observed that the scope of review jurisdiction cannot be stretched to re-argue or reassess a case in the absence of any error apparent on the face of the record.
Background of the Case
The controversy began in February 2023, when a complaint was lodged against Advocate Yeshwanth Shenoy before the Kerala Bar Council for alleged violations of professional conduct and etiquette. The complaint stemmed from a heated exchange between Shenoy and retired Justice Mary Joseph, who was then serving as a judge of the High Court.
Following the complaint, the Bar Council issued a show-cause notice to Shenoy. However, by the time the disciplinary process was in motion, the term of the Kerala State Bar Council was nearing its end.
The Council’s term expired on November 6, 2023, but was extended for six months by the Bar Council of India (BCI), taking it up to May 6, 2024. Beyond this date, as per Section 8A of the Advocates Act, 1961, a special committee should have been constituted to perform the functions of the State Bar Council until fresh elections were held.
However, no such committee was formed after May 2024 — a lapse that became crucial in the High Court’s June ruling.
June 2025 Judgment: No Valid State Bar Council After May 2024
In its earlier decision on June 20, 2025, the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court had quashed the disciplinary proceedings against Shenoy, observing that after May 6, 2024, there was no properly constituted State Bar Council capable of continuing the proceedings.
The Court clarified that even if the term of the State Bar Council members was notionally extended under Rule 32 of the BCI Certificate and Place of Practice (Verification) Rules, 2015, such an extension would only relate to lawyers’ enrolment and verification processes. It could not confer authority to continue or initiate disciplinary actions.
This distinction — between enrolment verification and disciplinary jurisdiction — formed a key part of the Court’s reasoning in invalidating the proceedings against Shenoy.
BCI’s Review Petition and Its Arguments
Unhappy with this interpretation, the Bar Council of India filed a review petition, arguing that the Court’s observation would have grave implications on the institutional functioning of all State Bar Councils across India.
The BCI contended that the ruling could disrupt ongoing disciplinary proceedings, create administrative confusion, and hamper enrolment and verification functions. According to the BCI, the High Court’s reading of the law effectively undermined the continuity of the regulatory framework governing advocates’ professional conduct.
The review petition therefore sought reconsideration of the portion of the judgment which declared that no valid Bar Council existed after May 6, 2024, in Kerala.
Kerala High Court Dismisses Review Plea
The Kerala High Court, however, rejected the BCI’s plea in its October 17, 2025 ruling, maintaining that there was no ground for review.
The Bench reiterated that a review petition is not a “second appeal”, and cannot be used to reopen or reargue issues already decided. The judges emphasized that the review jurisdiction exists solely to correct apparent errors in a judgment, not to substitute one view for another.
“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/ reasoning so taken in the order/judgment sought to be reviewed,” the Court observed.
The Bench further held that a mere possibility of two differing legal interpretations is not a valid ground to invoke review jurisdiction.
Supreme Court Precedent Reinforced
The High Court also referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Ajay Shankar Srivastava v. Bar Council of India, wherein it was held that the constitution of a special committee under Section 8A of the Advocates Act cannot be treated as an extension of the existing State Bar Council’s term.
This precedent directly supported the High Court’s earlier position that, after the expiry of the extended term, the Kerala State Bar Council ceased to function in a lawful capacity, unless a special committee was formally appointed.
Implications of the Ruling
The Court’s dismissal of the BCI’s review petition is significant for several reasons:
- Clarity on Institutional Continuity:
It reinforces the principle that State Bar Councils cannot function indefinitely beyond their tenure without fresh elections or proper formation of a special committee as per law. - Jurisdictional Boundaries Defined:
The ruling draws a clear line between the powers exercised under the Certificate and Place of Practice Rules, 2015 and those under the Advocates Act, 1961 — especially concerning disciplinary proceedings. - Impact on Disciplinary Proceedings Nationwide:
The judgment may influence how other State Bar Councils handle disciplinary matters during periods of administrative transition, ensuring that proceedings are not conducted by lapsed or invalid bodies. - Strengthened Oversight under Section 8A:
The Court’s reliance on Section 8A underscores the necessity for the Bar Council of India to promptly establish special committees when State Councils’ terms expire — to avoid legal vacuum or procedural irregularities.
Counsel Appearances
- Advocate Rajit appeared for the Bar Council of India.
- Advocate Yeshwanth Shenoy appeared in person.
- The Bar Council of Kerala was represented by Advocate Pranoy K. Kottaram.
Conclusion
With this ruling, the Kerala High Court has reaffirmed the limited scope of review jurisdiction and underscored the need for strict adherence to statutory mandates under the Advocates Act, 1961. The decision also highlights the judiciary’s insistence on procedural integrity within the legal profession’s self-regulatory framework.
By refusing to reopen the case, the Court effectively preserved its June 2025 judgment — thereby shielding the autonomy of judicial reasoning and ensuring that State Bar Councils operate strictly within their lawful tenure.
The verdict in Bar Council of India v. Yeshwanth Shenoy & Ors. stands as a crucial precedent for the administrative structure and disciplinary jurisdiction of Bar Councils across India.
Also Read
Delhi High Court Protects Personality Rights of Singer Kumar Sanu Against AI Misuse and Fake Content
