Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from the dismissal of a writ petition by a Single Judge of the High Court of Karnataka on the ground of maintainability. The writ petition had been filed by the Vice President of the Belagavi Bar Association, challenging a resolution passed by the Association's Managing Committee co-opting the fourth respondent as President following the sudden demise of the elected President. The appellant contended that the co-option was contrary to Bye-law 17(b) of the Association, which mandates that office bearers, including the President, shall be elected. The appellant also asserted that the Association, being a court-annexed Bar Association recognized by the court and functioning as part of the administration of justice, was amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The respondents objected, arguing that the Association is a private society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, not performing any public duty or function, and therefore not subject to judicial review under Article 226. The Single Judge, relying on earlier decisions of a Division Bench in Writ Appeal No. 399/2020 and a Single Judge in Writ Petition Nos. 102744-102747/2018, as well as the Supreme Court's ruling in L.I.C. of India v. Escorts Ltd., AIR 1976 SC 1370, held that the writ petition was not maintainable, as the Association did not discharge any public function. On appeal, the Division Bench of the High Court framed two points for determination: first, whether a writ under Article 226 is maintainable against a private entity, and second, whether a Bar Association is amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court. The court noted that the points were not res integra and referred extensively to the Supreme Court's decision in Supreme Court Bar Association v. B.D. Kaushik, (2011) 13 SCC 774, which categorically held that court-annexed Bar Associations constitute a separate class, function as part of the machinery for administration of justice, and are recognized by courts, which provide them with facilities like chambers, library, parking, and canteen at concessional rates. The Supreme Court emphasized that regular practitioners are treated as officers of the court, and the association plays a crucial role in ensuring proper conduct of members and assistance to the court. The Division Bench thus implied that such Bar Associations may be subject to writ jurisdiction if their actions involve a public law element. However, the available judgment text does not include the final decision, as it was incomplete. The arguments were heard and the matter was at the stage of deliverance.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Amenability of Bar Association to Writ Jurisdiction - Constitution of India, Article 226 - The primary question was whether a writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable against a Bar Association registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The court considered the test of whether the entity qualifies as 'other authority' under Article 12 or 'any person or authority' under Article 226, i.e., whether it performs a public duty or discharges public functions. The court noted the Supreme Court's ruling in Supreme Court Bar Association v. B.D. Kaushik, (2011) 13 SCC 774, which held that court-annexed Bar Associations are a separate class, part of the machinery for administration of justice, recognized by courts, and provided with facilities such as chambers, library, and parking at concessional rates. The court was of the view that such associations may be subject to judicial review under Article 226 if a public law element is involved. (Paras 13-15, 27-29)
Issue of Consideration
1. Whether a writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable against a private entity? 2. Whether the Bar Association is amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India?
Law Points
- test of 'other authority' under Article 12
- test of 'any person or authority' under Article 226
- amenability to writ jurisdiction if entity performs public duty or discharges public function
- court-annexed Bar Associations distinct from other lawyers' associations
- function as part of machinery for administration of justice
- recognition by courts
- provision of facilities
- interactions with judges indicate public character
