Junior Lawyers Find It Lucrative, For Effortless Practice & Assured Orders: Kerala High Court Flags Petitions Filed On "Fabricated False Vakalath" To Unfreeze Cyber Fraud-Linked Accounts

The Bench dismissed a writ petition filed by a 21-year-old woman seeking to unfreeze her bank account, which the Court found had prima facie been opened to facilitate cyber fraud.

The Court noted that some petitions in this category had been filed on the strength of fabricated vakalaths and affidavits, without the knowledge of the account holders concerned, and recorded that explanations submitted by certain advocates when queried revealed a startling lack of elementary legal knowledge, including an affidavit purportedly sworn and attested by the same person, and a claim that pleadings were prepared using blank signed papers collected from a client before he had left the country.

A Bench of Justice M.A. Abdul Hakhim observed, “…persons used to file the Writ Petitions through some of the young members of the Bar, as the pleadings and grounds are the same in all the Writ Petitions and this Court used to pass uniform orders in all such Writ Petitions permitting the operation of the Accounts while limiting the lien to the disputed amounts. It gave undue confidence to several junior lawyers to start independent practice during the initial stage of their practice itself. Junior Lawyers have found it a lucrative field for their practice on account of effortless practice and assured orders. There are several lawyers who started independent practice immediately after their enrolment. Of course, there are several junior lawyers who have been fairly conducting these types of cases of genuine Account Holders. Some junior lawyers get trapped in this field only because of their carelessness alone…”.

Advocate Viswanath Salish appeared for the petitioner and V.K. Rafeek, Senior Government Pleader appeared for the respondent.

The Court traced the pattern to the growing menace of "mule accounts", used to route and conceal proceeds of financial cyber fraud through multiple bank accounts. It noted that a large number of writ petitions seeking unfreezing of such accounts had come to be filed before it, with pleadings and prayers that were near-identical across cases, resulting in uniform orders permitting account holders to operate their accounts subject only to a lien on the disputed amount.

This practice, the Court observed, had been exploited: once an account was unfrozen pursuant to such an order, mule account holders would resume their activities on the strength of the Court's order itself.

It noted that certain lawyers who regularly filed such petitions had never personally appeared before the Court even once, with matters instead being conducted by inexperienced juniors on their behalf.

“In several Writ Petitions pertaining to the unfreezing of Accounts, reports are received from the SHO of the Petitioner that the Writ Petition was not filed by the Petitioner shown in the Writ Petition or that the Writ Petitioner was not available in India at the time of filing the Writ Petition. On account of the above direction, this Court could prevent the filing of the Writ Petitions without the knowledge of the Account Holders. This Court has sought explanations from certain lawyers who filed the Writ Petition either without the knowledge of theAccount Holder or by fabricating false Vakalath, Writ Petition and Affidavit…”, the Bench said.

“…The lack of elementary legal knowledge is revealed from the explanations submitted by certain junior lawyers which include an explanation in the form of an Affidavit sworn and attested by the same person, an explanation that the Writ Petition and Affidavit are prepared using blank papers obtained from the Petitioner before the Petitioner left the country, etc. This Court is yet to decide on the action to be taken against those lawyers…At present, several young lawyers with two to three years' standing at the Bar have been exclusively practising in this field with independent offices and many juniors. Some of the lawyers who have been regularly filing Writ Petitions for unfreezing Bank Accounts have not appeared before this Court even on a single occasion. In most cases, the matters are conducted through their inexperienced juniors”, it further noted.

Referring to its earlier decision in Blue Star Aluminium & Door House v. Federal Bank Ltd. 2025 KHC 2357, where it had already remarked upon the filing of AI-generated writ petitions by young advocates lacking adequate pleadings, and where counsel were sometimes unable to answer basic queries about their own filings. the Court reiterated the direction that the jurisdictional police station covering the petitioner's address be impleaded in every such petition, both to confirm that the petition was filed with the account holder's knowledge and to enable the Court to independently assess the petitioner's antecedents.

At the same time, the Court was careful to distinguish the conduct of a minority from the profession as a whole, observing that today's young law graduates are well-trained, tech-savvy, and capable, and that the future of the legal system remained secure provided such talent received proper guidance from the Senior Bar and the Bench. It acknowledged that several junior lawyers had been conducting genuine cases fairly, and that some had merely been careless rather than complicit.

The Court recorded that it was yet to decide on action to be taken against the specific lawyers whose explanations had raised concern, while directing that the practice of impleading the jurisdictional police in every such petition continue as a safeguard.

In the case at hand, the Court dismissed the writ petition and directed the Station House Officer, Tanur Police Station, to register an FIR against the petitioner under Section 111 BNS, and investigate.

Cause Title: Sinana Farvin v. Kerala Gramin Bank & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026:KER:50777)

Appearances:

Petitioner: Viswanath Salish, Akash Jitthu T., Nidha Sherin and Sandra Paul, Advocates.

Respondents: V.K. Rafeek, Senior Government Pleader, and Jawahar Jose, Standing Counsel.

Click here to read/download the Judgment