The Kerala High Court on Friday (August 22) sought the response of the State authorities on a writ petition filed by a law graduate who has approached the Court for directions to ensure the conduct of the long-pending enrolment of law graduates to the Bar Council of Kerala (BCK).

 

Justice N. Nagaresh, before whom the matter was listed, directed the standing counsel of the High Court to take instructions regarding its willingness to invoke statutory powers and conduct the enrolment in case the State Bar Council is unable to do so. The Court fixed the next date of hearing for Monday, August 25, 2025.

 

The petitioner, Stephen V. Thomas, submitted that he had personally approached the Bar Council of Kerala in June 2025 seeking information on the next enrolment notification. However, he was informed that no decision had been taken on the issue. This, he contended, left him and other similarly placed law graduates unable to enter the legal profession despite having completed all academic requirements.

 

The plea further referred to a significant ruling of a Division Bench of the High Court in Yeshwant Shenoy v. Bar Council of Kerala & Ors., wherein it was held that the existing quorum of the Bar Council of Kerala was not legally valid, as the terms of its elected members had expired. No fresh elections were conducted thereafter, nor was a Special Committee constituted by the Bar Council of India (BCI) in terms of Section 8A of the Advocates Act, 1961.

 

Although the Bar Council of India has filed a review petition against that decision, the same has been reserved for orders, leaving the status of the Kerala Bar Council in limbo.

 

 

The petitioner highlighted that Section 58 of the Advocates Act, 1961 provides an enabling mechanism whereby the High Court can conduct enrolment if the State Bar Council is not properly constituted or is unable to discharge its statutory functions.

 

It was further pointed out that a representation had already been submitted to the High Court through its Registrar General requesting it to invoke Section 58, but the request was declined, forcing the petitioner to move the Court through the present writ petition.

 

The petitioner has argued that while law graduates in other States have been able to enrol and commence practice, the continuing delay in Kerala amounts to a violation of Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India. The denial of enrolment, he said, obstructs the right to livelihood, equality before law, and freedom to practice a profession.

 

Accordingly, the writ petition prays for:

1. A direction to the Bar Council of Kerala and its Enrolment Committee to conduct the enrolment process without further delay.

2. In the alternative, a direction to the High Court itself to exercise powers under Section 58 of the Advocates Act, 1961 and organise the enrolment.

 

The petitioner is represented by a team of advocates including Meena A., Vinod Ravindranath, Thareeq Anver K., K.C. Kiran, M.R. Mini, Anish Antony Anathazhath, Nivedhitha Prem V., Ananthakrishnan A. Kartha, Mariya Joseph, and Ameera Jojo.