Bar associations not 'State', can't file writ petitions against them: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court recently reiterated that since bar associations are not “State” or its instrumentalities within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, they are not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 [Abhijeet Bacche-Patil vs Bar Council of Maharashtra]..The Bench of Justice GS Kulkarni and Justice Advait Sethna added that bar associations, which are either registered societies or trusts, are governed by their own bye-laws or rules and have no deep or pervasive control of the government or even of the Bar Council.Thus, the Court said that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for any relief in relation to a dispute between the bar association and its members is not maintainable."They are governed by a managing committee which is elected by its members. There is hence, neither any control nor any interference of the Government in the functions of the bar association, much less on their elections or day to day functioning. The managing committee looks after the welfare of its members. The Bar Associations, in the interest of its members, day-in and day-out issue circulars, notices, notifications, etc. If all such activities, actions and decisions of the bar association are to be held to be subject, to the judicial review of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, by reaching to a conclusion that the bar association is a “State” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, in our opinion, this would certainly lead to a chaotic situation," the Court observed..The Court was dealing with a petition moved by four advocates against a notice issued by the Kolhapur District Bar Association. The notice barred members from voting in the body's upcoming elections unless their annual dues were paid by April 1. The petitioners argued that the restriction was arbitrary and illegal, and sought quashing of the notice and also prayed for a direction to the association to permit voting by members who pay after the deadline..However, the Court at the outset considered whether the writ petition was maintainable.In this regard, it referred to an earlier ruling in Rajghor Ranjhan Jayantilal vs. Election scrutiny committee of BBA & Anr in which the High Court had held that in the absence of there being any deep or pervasive State control in the management of the affairs, a bar association cannot be held to be a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India."The view taken by this court in the case of Rajbhor Ranjhan Jayantilal (supra) was also followed in the case of Dilip Shridhar Modgi vs. Thane District Courts Bar Association through its Secretary," it added..Thus, the Court stressed that the aggrieved lawyers must approach the civil court as their writ petition was not maintainable."We are thus quite certain that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for any relief on a dispute between the member and the bar association is not maintainable," the Court made it clear. .The Court further said that if it entertains such writ petitions of lawyers, it would have to hear the cases against other professional bodies associations of doctors, chartered accountant and engineers..The Court in conclusion said such writ petitions cannot be entertained just for the reason that lawyers are governed by Advocates Act."The relationship between the bar association and its members on anything to do with the functioning of the bar association is circumscribed/governed and controlled by the rules of the bar association, to which the members subscribe, when they accept the membership of the bar association. If this be so, merely for the reason that the advocates are governed by the Advocates Act, a relief in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be granted against the bar association," the Court underlined. .The writ petitions was dismissed with liberty to approach the appropriate civil court for redressal of their grievance..Advocate Abhishek Nandimath along with advocates Shardul Diwan and Advait Vajaratkar appeared for the petitioners.[Read Judgment]