The Kerala High Court’s intervention has been sought in a writ petition filed against alleged corruption and financial misappropriation by members of the Bar Council of Kerala (BCK) since 2011..Recently, the Bench of Chief Justice Antony Dominic and Justice Dama Seshadri Naidu issued notice to the respondents..In his petition, Advocate B Sukesan has detailed serious allegations of misutilisation of BCK welfare funds, improprieties in the conduct of Bar Council elections, and criminal charges against its members..In leveling these complaints, the primary focus is upon the twenty-four members currently representing the Kerala Bar Council, in addition to Advocate General of Kerala, CP Sudhakara Prasad. Inter alia, the petitioner accuses these members of having indulged in the following illegalities..Misappropriation of Welfare Funds.It is noted that prior to 2011, the expenditure for council members was less than Rs 3 lakh per year. However, after the respondents assumed charge, the amount withdrawn stood at around Rs 9 lakh in 2011. The following years saw a progressive climb in the amount of funds withdrawn, ultimately reaching over Rs 56 lakh for the year 2017..The misuse of Bar Council funds is also found in the arbitrary increase of DA allowance by the members, although the escalated DA and TA were cancelled in 2016, following complaints..The members have been accused of adopting new techniques to withdraw funds on the basis of self-made vouchers, as opposed to bills of expenditure. It is also alleged that funds meant for development schemes are used for pleasure visits to tourist spots. The petition indicates that these visits often take the guise of Bar Council meetings..“The council members have conducted several programmes and their meetings at Kumarakam, Munnar, Nelliyampathi, Kovalam etc., without any participation of the lawyers…Conducting meeting of the Bar Council members is permitted only at the centre of the Bar Counil of Kerala, particularly at Ernakulam under Bar Council of Kerala Rules, 1979. But the respondents…arbitrarily conduct their meetings at hill stations/other tourist destinations in India without any bonafides.”.Another instance of alleged financial misappropriation has to do with the transfer of control of the National University of Advanced Legal Studies (NUALS) at Kochi, which was initially established under the BCK Trust..After administrative control of NUALS was surrendered by the Kerala Bar Council to the state government, no compensation was received for the same from the Kerala Government..Further, an amount of Rs 2.5 crore given in 2016 at the instance of the members for the conduct of advocate refresher courses in the adjoining KINFRA property, bore no fruit..Refusal to conduct Mandatory Audits.The Council members have not submitted mandatory audit reports owing to “ulterior motives”, in contravention of Article 12 of the Advocates Act, 1961..Sukesan submits that audit reports between 2015 and 2017 have not been completed. Further, it is contended that the Bar Council has demonstrated reluctance to provide information regarding the expenditure incurred by the members, as evident from a communication made in December 2017..The incrimination and arrest of one Chandran, an accountant who previously worked for the Kerala Advocate Welfare Trust Committee, has also assumed significance in this background. Chandran had been suspended from service for misappropriation of Rs. 1.36 crore from the trust fund..The petitioner points out that following his suspension in 2017, Chandran was arrested for possession of fake currency by the Madurai police. In this context, it has been submitted,.“It is not possible to manipulate, misappropriate and mis-utilise funds maintained by the Bar Council of Kerala without the knowledge of the Secretary of the Bar Council of Kerala as well as respondents 7 to 30 [Bar Council members]. It is understood that the said accountant has received numerous support from the other administrative staff as well as respondents…”.Ineligibility of BCK members.It has been contended that most of the Bar Council members are not practicing lawyers. The petitioner has also argued that they ought to be disqualified from representing the Bar Council on account of criminal antecedents pending against several of the members..In particular, the petitioner has submitted that TS Ajith, who is BCK’s representative to the Bar Council of India (BCI), has a case under Section 354 of the IPC registered against him..The petition also alleges irregularities in sanctioning several law colleges in Kerala during Ajith’s tenure. Whereas 19 colleges were accorded sanction during this time, it has been submitted that many of them have no basic facilities..As per Sukesan, several other members also stand accused of criminal offences, including offences of moral turpitude..Irregularities in conduct of Bar Council Elections.The tenure of the Bar Council members had expired in April 2016. However, Sukesan argues that they had refused to take any steps for the conduct of elections so that they could hold on to their posts..Further, members, including TS Ajith, intend to stand for the forthcoming elections, despite the criminal cases pending against them. The petitioner has stated that this is possible since there are no qualification/disqualification rules to stand for Bar Council elections in Kerala..With particular reference to Ajith, it has been pointed out that he continues to represent the BCK in the BCI. This, despite his resignation from the post of Special Committee member for the BCK, in order to contest in the forthcoming elections. Ajith’s continued status as BCI member has been challenged as being illegal..The petitioner has also alleged irregularities in the preparation of the voter’s list, non-publication of election notification etc. with respect to the conduct of the upcoming Bar Council elections..In light of these grievances, Sukesan has called for the conduct of a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe and a detailed audit of the accounts and economic transactions of the BCK. His petition prays that the High Court issue a writ of mandamus so that the same be carried out by the CBI and the Comptroller and Auditor General, respectively..As an interim measure, it has also prayed that member Ajith be restrained from functioning as the BCK member in the BCI..The petition was filed through advocate JS Ajith Kumar, who said to Bar & Bench,.“The writ petition has been admitted and notice has been issued to all the members. We are awaiting their counter. It is a matter affecting the lawyers of the state of Kerala.”.He also revealed that the BCK had called for an investigation by the local authorities. However, this move, Ajith Kumar says, is not likely to solve the issue..“The Bar Council has already lodged a complaint with the SP (Vigilance), asking for an investigation. We cannot expect this to bear any fruit, because the Vigilance Officer is subordinate to the Advocate General and the Law Secretary. That is why we are seeking an investigation by an outside agency like the CBI.”.As to the future course of action, he says,.“We will bring up this matter after the Bar Council elections, which are sanctioned on 18th. Our aim is not to stall the election, all we want is a comprehensive investigation under the supervision of the CBI and an audit of the accounts.”.Read copy of Petition:
