The Bar Council of Kerala (BCK) recently sought a response from Mathew Kuzhalnadan, an advocate and Congress Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA), in relation to a complaint filed against him.
The complaint alleges that Kuzhalnadan violated the Bar Council of India (BCI) Rules by operating a business despite being enrolled as an advocate.
Issuing a show cause notice, the BCK has directed Kuzhalnadan to furnish an explanation within a span of 14 days. The complaint was lodged by Advocate Sajeeve CK, the Secretary of All India Lawyers Union. Sajeeve CK alleges that Kuzhalnadan, along with three others, was involved in running a resort named ‘Capithan’s Bungalow’.
In his formal complaint, Sajeeve CK revealed that upon learning of the resort business from media reports, he conducted inquiries and discovered that the local Panchayat had granted a license designating their venture as a partnership.
The crux of the complaint is rooted in Kuzhalnadan’s purported breach of Rule 47 of the BCI Rules. This rule stipulates that “an advocate shall not personally engage in any business; but maybe a sleeping partner in a firm doing business provided that in the opinion of the appropriate State Bar Council, the nature of the business is not inconsistent with the dignity of the profession.” The BCK has now formally sought Kuzhalnadan’s response to these allegations.
Kuzhalnadan has taken center stage in Kerala’s news cycle in recent times. The MLA from the Muvattupuzha constituency made public allegations against Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan and his daughter Veena. Kuzhalnadan’s primary assertion was that Veena and her company, Exalogic, had failed to remit Integrated Goods and Service Tax (IGST) on a payment amounting to ₹1.7 crore received from Cochin Minerals and Rutile Ltd.
The Congress leader reportedly dispatched a complaint to the State Finance Minister and demanded an explanation from the ruling CPI(M) (Communist Party of India (Marxist)) government during a press conference held over the past weekend.
In a tit-for-tat response, the CPI(M) retaliated against Kuzhalnadan’s allegations, accusing him of tax evasion pertaining to a resort he owns – the very establishment that has drawn the attention of the BCK.
