Kerala HC Stays BCI’s Interim Orders
In a significant development, the Kerala High Court has issued a stay on two orders from the Bar Council of India (BCI) that established an interim authority to manage certain functions of the Bar Council of Kerala (BCK). This interim body was meant to operate until the newly elected XIIIth State Council convenes its first meeting. The stay order was issued in the case of Yeshwanth Shenoy v Bar Council of India.
Background and Legal Challenge
The controversy began after Advocate Yeshwanth Shenoy, a newly elected member of the BCK, raised concerns about the interim arrangement. Shenoy questioned the necessity of the interim body following the official notification of the XIIIth Bar Council of Kerala in the Kerala Gazette on June 16, 2026. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas agreed to hear two connected writ petitions challenging the BCI’s interim measures.
The court found that the impugned orders, identified as Exhibit P6 in W.P.(C) No.25168 of 2026 and Exhibits P10 and P11 in W.P.(C) No.26232 of 2026, were issued without proper consideration and contravened the Advocates Act. The elections to the XIII Bar Council of Kerala were conducted in April, and the results were officially published on June 16.
BCI’s Interim Authority and Opposition
Despite the notification, the BCI Chairman issued orders on June 24 to create a limited interim authority responsible for critical functions like enrolment, Sanad-related tasks, facilitating the All India Bar Examination (AIBE), and processing pending Advocates’ Welfare Fund claims. The interim body included Kerala’s Advocate General Jaju Babu and two newly elected BCK members, Manoj Kumar N and Santhosh Kumar P. On June 30, another order added former BCK Chairman Ajith TS to this temporary setup.
The BCI defended the interim arrangement as necessary to prevent administrative disruptions until the XIIIth Bar Council meets and forms its committees. However, Shenoy argued against this need, citing that the BCI Chairman lacks statutory authority to issue such orders. He pointed to Section 58 of the Advocates Act, which provides a legal framework for transitions when a new Bar Council assumes office, negating the requirement for an interim body without statutory backing.
More Read
Allegations of Irregularities
Shenoy further alleged that the interim authority might be a ploy to cover up financial irregularities from the XIIth Bar Council’s term. He questioned the inclusion of former BCK Chairman Ajith TS and his continued representation as Chairman despite his term’s expiration.
Court’s Ruling and Future Directions
The Kerala High Court’s order effectively halts the interim arrangement instituted by the BCI orders dated June 24 and June 30. The court directed that until the XIIIth Bar Council conducts its first meeting, Advocate General Jaju Babu and the BCK Secretary will act as the body’s authorised signatories. The court also noted discrepancies in enrolment certificates that still listed Ajith TS as the BCK Chairman, emphasizing that the Advocate General and the BCK Secretary should serve as signatories instead.
Advocate Yeshwanth Shenoy represented himself in court, while Standing Counsel Rajit appeared for the Bar Council of India, and MU Vijayalakshmi represented the Bar Council of Kerala.
