Bengaluru witnessed a rather intense atmosphere on Thursday morning as the Karnataka High Court delivered its order in the long-running dispute between Senior Advocate Jayna Kothari and former Zoomcar employee Manish Kumar. The case, which has been floating since 2019, revolves around whether Kothari’s role as an external member of the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) can be treated as professional misconduct-a very serious allegation for any lawyer. Justice M. Nagaprasanna, after weeks of reserving the matter, finally put the controversy to rest.
Background
The dispute began when Zoomcar India received a sexual harassment complaint from a woman employee against Manish Kumar in May 2019. Kothari was appointed as the ICC’s external member, a position mandated under the POSH Act. After conducting an enquiry, the ICC-unanimously-found Kumar guilty and recommended dismissal. The company terminated him the same day.
Read also: Assam High Court Flags Gaps in Police Recruitment Policy for Transgender Applicants, Seeks Clarity
Kumar challenged the finding before the Additional Labour Commissioner, who not only overturned the conclusion, but also made sweeping remarks against Kothari, accusing her of bias. Those comments were later expunged by the High Court in 2023. Even so, Kumar went one step further-he lodged a professional misconduct complaint before the Karnataka State Bar Council, alleging that Kothari acted like a consultant for the company, involved her law firm, and influenced events to favour Zoomcar. That complaint kept lingering, and the Bar Council even issued a notice in 2022.
Kothari finally approached the High Court seeking to prohibit the Bar Council from proceeding, labelling the entire complaint as baseless and personal.
Court’s Observations
Justice Nagaprasanna dug deep into the timeline-emails, ICC proceedings, the termination order, the Labour Commissioner’s comments, and the Bar Council complaint. What stood out through the hearing was the judge’s pointed remark that the petitioner was not acting as an advocate at all, but as an external ICC member, a role filled by professionals, academics, activists, and other neutral individuals.
Read also: Supreme Court Flags Serious Concerns Over Police Conduct in Madhya Pradesh Case, Seeks Affidavits
At one point, the judge noted, “Findings rendered by a statutory committee cannot suddenly become ‘professional misconduct’ merely because one party disagrees with the result.”
The court also took note of two major aspects:
- Kothari had no prior professional engagement with Zoomcar, and she stated she received no fee or honorarium.
- The allegations-especially about conflict of interest involving her brother or law firm-were never substantiated in the original ICC process or in any earlier proceedings.
The bench further observed that an ICC enquiry cannot be equated with courtroom advocacy. The POSH Act requires external experts for exactly this purpose-so that workplaces get unbiased, non-corporate oversight. Blaming an external member simply because the outcome is unfavourable, the court hinted, risks discouraging qualified persons from taking up statutory roles.
Justice Nagaprasanna also seemed unconvinced about the Bar Council’s delay and lack of clarity, remarking that the complaint had remained dormant for almost three years before suddenly being revived.
Read also: Gujarat High Court Rejects State’s Appeal, Says Temple-Visit Quarrel Cannot Be Treated as Cruelty
Decision
In a firm and clear order, the High Court prohibited the Bar Council of Karnataka from proceeding with the misconduct complaint and quashed the notice issued to Kothari. The judge held that her participation in the ICC was purely in an individual, statutory capacity, not as a lawyer representing any party, and therefore Section 35 of the Advocates Act was not attracted. With that, the court concluded the matter, ruling entirely in her favour.
Case Title: Ms. Jayna Kothari vs. Manish Kumar & Karnataka State Bar Council
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 19619 of 2022
Case Type: Writ Petition (General Miscellaneous – Regulation of Bar Council / Professional Misconduct)
Decision Date: 07 November 2025