While dealing with a matter highlighting how clandestine attempts are made by some advocates to unfreeze bank accounts, the Kerala High Court has refused to accept the Bar Association’s stand that it had no information regarding any instance in which its member had misused his power. The High Court held that the Bar Association can at least conduct a basic enquiry in this regard to identify the individuals.

The High Court rendered such findings while dealing with a review petition filed by the Kerala High Court Advocates Association.

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. ordered, “It will be open for the SHO, on getting an intimation from the Government Pleader to enquire about the identity and other relevant credentials of the writ petitioner. The report to be submitted to the Public Prosecutor/ Government Pleader must include details of such enquiry carried out by the SHO concerned. If the Court feels that for the purpose of proper disposal of the writ petition seeking unfreezing of the bank account preferred by the petitioner, the identity of the petitioner as well as his other credentials are also required to be gone into, it is open to the court to seek such details especially since clandestine attempts had been made to unfreeze the bank accounts which have been very articulately expressed by Justice M.A. Abdul Hakim in His Lordship’s Order dated 10th December 2025 in W.P. (C) No. 43123 of 2025 as well as in the order dated 12.12.2025 in W.P. (C) No. 43642 of 2025.”

“We expected the Bar Association to at least conduct a basic enquiry in this regard to identify the individuals and not to leave it to the Court to make a reference of the names of such persons for cancellation of their membership and for informing the Bar Council of India of such acts”, the order read.

Senior Advocate Shinto Mathew Abraham represented the Review Petitioner, while Advocate Nayanpally Ramola and Special GP P Narayanan represented the Respondents.

Factual Background

The High Court, in a previous order, had directed the Secretary of the Kerala High Court Advocates’ Association to file an affidavit indicating the steps taken or proposed to be taken against the advocates who allegedly misused their power and made false representations in relation to the matters about the defreezing of bank accounts. The matter at hand related to a writ petition filed for a direction to a bank to defreeze an account. The High Court, on December 10, 2025, had issued directions aimed at safeguarding the integrity of such proceedings and also restricted the Registry from numbering any writ petition seeking the defreezing of accounts unless the relevant SHO was made a party, until further orders.

The President of the Bar had filed an affidavit mentioning that the Association is strictly following its bylaws and regulations and, in the absence of any information officially received from the Court regarding any instance in which its member advocate has misused his power and made false representations in relation to matters before the High Court, the Association was unable to submit a report regarding any action taken.

Reasoning

The Bench, at the outset, made it clear that the advocates responsible for misleading the Court, which may amount to an act of contempt, are to be dealt with in accordance with law at an appropriate stage if so found liable. “Steps in the said regard cannot be delayed. If the Bar Association is not aware of the advocates who have allegedly misused their position as an advocate, this Court shall furnish particulars of the matters in which such advocates have misused their power and had thus interfered with the administration of justice”, it held.

The Bench was of the view that when the Association had filed an application urging that the identification by the SHO, independent of identification by the advocate in terms of Rule 76 of the Rules of the High Court of Kerala, 1971, be reviewed, the Association must be aware of the members responsible for such acts which had prompted the Court.

Stating that clandestine attempts were made to unfreeze the bank accounts, the Bench held, “An Advocate is an officer of the Court, and the Court ordinarily relies upon the submissions and representations made by an Advocate without questioning his integrity, as it is expected that an Advocate would not misconduct himself in Court proceedings. However, it now appears that the Bar Association is unable to comment upon the Advocates responsible for such alleged malpractices.”

Taking note of the manner in which the de-freezing orders are being obtained, the Bench held that it would be open to the Court to call for an independent report from the SHO or to require the presence of the writ petitioner. “It will also be open to the court concerned before which the malpractice is revealed to refer the matter for appropriate action to the Secretary of the Bar Council. The said authority shall treat the communication as a complaint and take appropriate action in accordance with law”, it held.

Adjourning the matter to June 3, 2026, the Bench clarified that it would be open to the court concerned to call for a further report from the SHO concerned if the circumstances so warrant.

Cause Title: Kerala High Court Advocates Association v. State Of Kerala (RP NO. 288 OF 2026)

Appearance

Review Petitioner: Senior Advocates Shinto Mathew Abraham, Santhosh Mathew, Advocates Arun Thomas, Veena Raveendran, Karthika Maria, Anil Sebastian Pulickel, Mathew Nevin Thomas, Karthik Rajagopal, Kurian Antony Mathew, Aparnna S., Adeen Nazar, Noel Ninan Ninan, Arun Joseph Mathew, Rohan Mathew

Respondent: Advocate Nayanpally Ramola

Click here to read/download Order


Kerala High CourtChief Justice Soumen SenJustice Syam Kumar V.M.

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.