Kochi: The Kerala High Court has strongly criticised former office-bearers and committees of the Bar Council of Kerala (BCK) for what it described as a “calculated, fraudulent attempt” to manipulate records and remove the Council’s Secretary from office after she had withdrawn her resignation.

Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A., while allowing the petition filed by Simy S., Secretary of the Bar Council of Kerala, found serious irregularities in the manner in which her resignation was purportedly accepted and subsequently ratified. The Court held that records appeared to have been manipulated and documents concocted to create an impression that the resignation had been accepted before the petitioner withdrew it.

The judgment, reported as [2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 441], sharply disapproved of such conduct by a statutory body entrusted with responsibilities connected with the legal profession.

According to the Court, the materials on record revealed a deliberate effort by the then Bar Council authorities to deprive the petitioner of her legitimate rights. The Court observed that such manipulation was particularly disturbing because it was allegedly carried out by officials of a statutory institution expected to uphold standards befitting the legal profession.

Resignation Withdrawn the Very Next Day
Simy S. was serving as Secretary of the Bar Council when she submitted her resignation. According to her case, the resignation was given under pressure from members of the committees then managing the Council.

The controversy arose from a meeting of the committee which the petitioner had recorded on her mobile phone for the purpose of preparing its minutes. She alleged that she was subsequently made to believe that recording the proceedings amounted to an illegal act and that action would be initiated against her unless she resigned.

She accordingly submitted a resignation letter. However, on the very next day, she withdrew the resignation in writing.

Despite the withdrawal, she was later informed that her resignation had already been accepted by the then Chairman of the Bar Council and had subsequently been ratified by the concerned committees before her withdrawal request was received. Her request to withdraw the resignation was rejected, and she was not permitted to resume duty.

She then approached the Kerala High Court.
Chairman Had No Independent Authority to Accept Resignation
A central question before the Court was whether the Chairman of the Bar Council could independently accept the Secretary's resignation.

The High Court held that the Chairman was only one among the members of the committees concerned and had not been conferred any specific or special authority to unilaterally take a decision binding on the Bar Council.

Therefore, even assuming that the Chairman had purported to accept the resignation, such acceptance could not be regarded as a valid decision of the competent authority.

The Court consequently held that the Chairman's action could not deprive the petitioner of her statutory right to withdraw the resignation.
Kerala Service Rules applied.

Another important aspect of the judgment concerned the applicability of the Kerala Service Rules (KSR).
The petitioner pointed out that the bond executed in connection with her appointment specifically provided for the application of the Kerala Service Rules.

 Under Rule 23 of Chapter III, Part I of the KSR, an employee is entitled, subject to the applicable conditions, to withdraw a resignation before it becomes effective through valid acceptance by the competent authority.

The High Court accepted this contention and held that the petitioner had a legally enforceable right to withdraw her resignation before its valid acceptance.

The Court rejected the argument that a later ratification by the committees could retrospectively validate the Chairman's purported acceptance in such a manner as to defeat the petitioner's earlier withdrawal.

Court Finds Manipulation of Records
The most serious finding of the judgment concerned the manner in which the official records relating to the resignation were allegedly prepared.

The Court found circumstances indicating an attempt to manipulate records and create documents showing that the resignation had already been accepted and ratified before the petitioner's withdrawal reached the authorities.

Describing the conduct as a planned and unlawful attempt, the Court said such manipulation could not ordinarily be expected from an institution such as the Bar Council of Kerala.

The observations assume particular significance because the Bar Council is a statutory body responsible for functions connected with the regulation and welfare of members of the legal profession.

Communications Quashed

The High Court ultimately quashed two communications issued to the petitioner by the Bar Council Chairman.
The first communication informed her that her resignation had been accepted and subsequently ratified by the committees. The second rejected her request to withdraw the resignation.
By setting aside both communications, the Court effectively rejected the process through which the petitioner had been prevented from continuing as Secretary.

Significance of the Judgment

The ruling goes beyond an individual employment dispute and contains a strong judicial reminder that statutory and professional bodies must act transparently, lawfully and through duly authorised decision-making mechanisms.

The judgment also reinforces the principle that an administrative authority cannot defeat an employee's legal rights by retrospectively creating or rearranging records to suggest that a decision was taken at an earlier point in time.

For institutions associated with the administration and regulation of the legal profession, the Court's observations carry an additional message:
 bodies that demand integrity and professional discipline from advocates must themselves maintain equally high standards of fairness, accountability and institutional propriety.