Bar Council on Notice: HC moves against Advocates who secured De-Freezing orders by misleading court in Cybercrime Cases

On Wednesday, the Kerala High Court has initiated a decisive step to curb abuse of its writ jurisdiction by directing its Registry to identify advocates who allegedly misled the Court to obtain orders in bank account de-freezing cases linked to cybercrime. The move assumes significance at a time when courts are increasingly confronted with petitions lacking verifiable details, raising concerns about the integrity of judicial proceedings and the role of legal representatives in facilitating such relief.

The issue surfaced in a review petition filed by the Kerala High Court Advocates' Association challenging earlier directions that made prior police verification of litigants mandatory in de-freezing petitions. Those safeguards were introduced after the Court noticed a surge in cases where bank accounts, suspected to be connected with cyber fraud, were sought to be unfrozen without adequate disclosure of transactions or even proper identification of the account holders. While the Court had earlier relaxed the requirement of filing an affidavit from the local Station House Officer as an interim measure, it remained concerned about the underlying misuse. The Association, in its affidavit, claimed inability to act against any advocate due to lack of specific information from the Court, a stance that did not find favour with the Bench.

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar VM held that professional accountability cannot be sidestepped by pleading ignorance. It observed, “We cannot presume that the bar association is unaware of such facts…”, particularly when it had itself approached the Court seeking modification of earlier directions. The Court, therefore, directed the Registry to compile and furnish details of advocates found to have secured orders by misleading the Court, and to communicate the same to the Association as well as the Bar Council of Kerala within one week.

The Bench clarified that courts retain full authority to verify the identity of litigants and may insist on their personal appearance where necessary. It also permitted police authorities to independently inquire into doubtful claims and directed that such reports be shared with the State’s counsel. Additionally, the Registrar General, the Bar Council, and the Association have been asked to file fresh affidavits outlining steps taken against erring advocates.

Disclaimer: This news/ article includes information received via a syndicated news feed. The original rights remain with the respective publisher.