In a significant judgment affecting bar councils across India, the Kerala High Court on October 17, 2025, dismissed a review petition filed by the Bar Council of India (BCI) against its earlier decision favoring advocate Yeshwanth Shenoy. The Division Bench, comprising Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice Syam Kumar V.M, firmly held that no error apparent on record justified revisiting its June ruling.
The verdict came after the BCI sought a review of the court's interpretation of Rule 32 of the Bar Council of India Certificate and Place of Practice (Verification) Rules, 2015, which had earlier curtailed the Council’s disciplinary powers beyond its statutory term.
Background
The case originated when Yeshwanth Shenoy, a practising lawyer and then President of the Kerala High Court Bar Association, was issued a show-cause notice in February 2023 by the Bar Council of Kerala for alleged professional misconduct.
A single judge had initially upheld the notice, but Shenoy appealed. The Division Bench, in June 2025, allowed his appeal, ruling that the Bar Council’s term had expired and it had no authority to proceed with disciplinary action once a Special Committee, as mandated under Section 8A of the Advocates Act, 1961, was not constituted.
That verdict also noted that the BCI's reliance on Rule 32 - which allows continuation of a State Bar Council's term to complete verification of practising lawyers - could not override clear statutory provisions restricting its disciplinary powers.
Courtroom Exchanges
During the hearing of the review plea, BCI's counsel, Rajit, argued that the earlier judgment suffered from "errors apparent on record." He maintained that Rule 32 allowed BCI to extend a State Council’s functioning, not merely for verification purposes but also to ensure continuity in administrative and disciplinary matters.
He cited the Supreme Court's decision in Anil Kumar v. Bar Council of Kerala, asserting that the rule's interpretation had already been judicially approved.
"The impugned order," he contended, “has serious institutional implications. Without such extensions, the entire functioning of the legal profession, from verification to enrolment, would be paralyzed."
But Mr. Shenoy, appearing in person, countered with calm precision. “The Bar Council of India cannot stretch Rule 32 like a rubber band to cover everything,” he said, adding that once a Council’s term ends, its disciplinary authority also ceases.
He referred to a letter dated 23 May 2024 from the BCI Chairman to one of its members, where it was explicitly stated that the extension was meant only to complete the verification process, not to conduct disciplinary proceedings. "They knew their limits," Shenoy added, "yet chose to act beyond them."
Court's Observations
The Bench appeared unconvinced by BCI’s arguments. Justice Dharmadhikari noted that review jurisdiction is not an appeal in disguise.
"The power of review is only for correction of an error apparent on the face of the record," the Bench observed. "A party cannot be permitted to argue the case all over again in the garb of review."
Referring to the Supreme Court's rulings in S. Bhagirathi Ammal v. Palani Roman Catholic Mission and State of West Bengal v. Kamal Sengupta, the court stressed that a review is not meant to substitute or improve upon reasoning already given.
Addressing the BCI's concern about institutional impact, the Bench was blunt:
"The Bar Council of India must take responsibility for its acts and omissions and act in accordance with the Advocates Act. Having not constituted the special committee, it cannot now plead prejudice."
The judges also brushed aside the attempt by three advocates - Adeen Nazar, Sreeraj S. Rajaram, and Deborah Denny - to join the review petition, reasoning that their enrolment concerns had no bearing on the disciplinary issue under discussion.
Decision
After lengthy submissions and some tense courtroom moments, the Bench concluded that none of the legal grounds under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code were made out for review.
"The judgment under challenge does not suffer from any apparent error warranting interference," Justice Dharmadhikari declared while dictating the order. "The review petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. All pending applications stand closed."
As the lawyers began gathering their files, a few murmurs were heard in the gallery - some of relief, others of disappointment. For the moment, though, the Kerala High Court had drawn a firm boundary between statutory authority and delegated rule-making, reminding even the country's apex legal body that rules cannot outrun the law itself.
Case Details: Bar Council of India v. Yeshwanth Shenoy
