Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, four advocates and members of the Kolhapur District Bar Association, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court challenging a notice dated 1 April 2025 issued by the Association. The notice required members to clear outstanding dues by 1 April 2025 to be eligible to participate and vote in the upcoming elections, and stated that payments made after that date would not render a member eligible. The petitioners contended the notice was arbitrary and illegal, and sought a writ of certiorari to quash it, along with a mandamus directing the Association to allow members who paid dues after 1 April 2025 to vote. The core legal issue was whether the Bar Association could be subjected to writ jurisdiction under Article 226. The court examined the maintainability of the petition at the threshold, focusing on whether the Association qualified as a 'State' or its instrumentality under Article 12. The petitioners argued that the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa exercises control over the Association and that the Association's functions align with those of the Bar Council, making it an instrumentality of the State, and relied on decisions of the Karnataka and Delhi High Courts. Rejecting this, the court held that no parity could be drawn between the statutory duties of a Bar Council constituted under the Advocates Act and a bar association, which is merely an association of persons. Relying on its own Division Bench decision in Rajghor Ranjhan Jayantilal vs. Election Scrutiny Committee of B.B.A. & Anr. (2024 SCC OnLine Bom 1118) and Dilip Shridhar Modgi vs. Thane District Courts Bar Association, the court observed that a bar association, being an association of persons with its own bye-laws, does not receive any financial support from the government, and there is no deep or pervasive State control in its management or affairs. The functions of a bar association are not governmental. The court further noted that accepting the petitioners' contention would lead to a chaotic situation, as thousands of bar associations across Maharashtra, and indeed professional bodies of doctors, chartered accountants, and engineers, would then be subject to writ jurisdiction for every internal dispute, many of which involve disputed questions of fact. The court also emphasized that the petitioners were not remediless, as they could approach a civil court by way of a suit for redressal of any election grievance. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed on the ground of maintainability, with no costs. The decision reinforces the principle that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is not available for disputes between members and their bar association, and the proper forum is the civil court.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Maintainability - Article 12, Article 226, Constitution of India, 1950 - The petition challenged a notice issued by the Kolhapur District Bar Association regarding dues and eligibility to vote in its elections, contending the notice was arbitrary and violated the petitioners' legal rights. The court held that a Bar Association is not a State under Article 12 as it is an association of persons, governed by its own bye-laws, does not receive government financial assistance, and has no deep or pervasive State control in its management; thus, a writ petition under Article 226 is not maintainable for inter se disputes between members and the association. Held that the appropriate remedy is to file a civil suit for election grievances. (Paras 5-9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a District Bar Association is a 'State' or its instrumentality within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India so as to be amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable. The court held that the Kolhapur District Bar Association is not a State under Article 12, and therefore no writ under Article 226 can be issued against it. The petitioners were advised to seek remedy by filing a civil suit.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- A writ petition under Article 226 is not maintainable against a Bar Association as it is not a State or its instrumentality under Article 12 of the Constitution of India
- Bar Association is an association of persons governed by its own bye-laws
- not receiving government financial assistance
- and having no deep or pervasive State control
- remedy for disputes between members and the association lies in a civil suit
- disputed questions of fact cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction.
