Kerala High Court directs Registry to identify advocates who misled court in bank de-freezing cases

The Kerala High Court on Wednesday directed its Registry to identify advocates who have misled the Court to secure relief in petitions for de-freezing bank accounts tied to cybercrime cases [Kerala High Court Advocates' Association (KHCAA) v Suo Motu JPP Proceedings initiated by the High Court].

Such misuse of the High Court's writ jurisdiction had recently led the Court to make police verification of the litigant's identity compulsory, before any petition to de-freeze bank accounts is entertained.

The Kerala High Court Advocates' Association (KHCAA) has filed a review plea against such directions in a February 13 order. As an interim measure, the Court on February 25 agreed to relax a requirement for an affidavit from the local police Station House Officer (SHO).

However, it has now emphasised the need to identify the lawyers whose misleading representations about their clients led the Court to flag the misuse of the legal process in the first place.

Yesterday, a Division Bench of Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar VM noted the KHCAA's submission that it was not aware of the identity of such lawyers.

The association had filed an affidavit stating that it was unable to take action against any such advocate due to lack of official information from the Court regarding instances of such misconduct.

Finding this response unsatisfactory, the Court said that it had expected the association to conduct an internal enquiry rather than wait for the Court to furnish names.

The Court observed that when the association had itself filed a review petition seeking a modification of the earlier directions, it could not claim to be unaware of such instances.

It proceeded to order the Registry to identify and submit information about such advocates who were misleading the Court. The Bench added that this information should be communicated to the KHCAA President as well as the Secretary of the Bar Council of Kerala (BCK).

"We cannot presume that the bar association is unaware of such facts, otherwise no such application for review was required. However, we direct the registry to furnish the name of the advocate who are instrumental in obtaining the orders by misleading the court and in the event they are members of bar association, a due intimation should be sent to the President of the bar association as well as the Secretary of the Bar Council of Kerala within one week from today," the Court said.

The Court's Registrar General, the Bar Council of Kerala and the KHCAA were also directed to file a fresh affidavit detailing the steps taken against advocates found to have misled the Court.

It was further clarified that all Benches of the Court retain the full authority to independently verify the identity of litigants or require their presence in court, as and when needed.

'"The power of the court to seek information of the writ petitioner or (seek their) appearance cannot be whittled down in any manner whatsoever," the Court said. 

It added one more modification to its February 25 order. The Bench said that the police would be free to inquire into complaints about the identity of writ petitioners or other persons involved in bank de-freezing cases. If such inquiries are conducted, a report about the same is to be submitted to the State's counsel (public prosecutor or government pleader) as well, the Court said.

Concerns about misuse of the court's jurisdiction were raised in December 2025, when a single judge Bench flagged a surge of bank de-freezing cases being filed by advocates on behalf of those involved in cyber-fraud matters, without proper details of the transactions or even the litigant's identity.

The single judge, therefore, called on the Registry to ensure that the local police SHO is made a party to all petitions seeking the de-freezing of bank accounts, before such petitions are numbered.

The said directive was later made part of the Court's practice directions, by way of the Division Bench's February 13 order.

The KHCAA was represented by senior counsel Santosh Mathew along with advocate Shinto Mathew Abraham

Advocate Ramola Nayanpally appeared in the suo motu proceedings for the High Court.

Special Government Pleader P Narayanan appeared for the State.

[Live Coverage]