Bombay High Court: The Division Bench of G.S. Kulkarni* and Advait M. Sethna, JJ., while considering challenge to the notice issued by a District Bar Association for clearance of dues, opined that, if all the activities, actions, and decisions of the bar associations were made subject to judicial review of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, by concluding that the bar association was a ‘State’ within the meaning of Article 12, then it would certainly lead to a chaotic situation and a possible misuse of the discretionary and summary jurisdiction of this Court.
The Court dismissed the present petition and stated that it was open for the petitioners to approach the appropriate Civil Court for redressal of their grievance.
Background
The present petition was filed challenging the notice dated 1-4-2025 issued by Respondent 2, Kolhapur District Bar Association, whereby the members were informed that the dues payable by them should be cleared and only after that, the members would be considered eligible to participate in the elections. Further, the members who made payments after 1-4-2025, would not be eligible to participate and/or cast vote in the election.
The petitioners submitted that the notice issued by Respondent 2 was arbitrary and illegal as it affected their legal right to participate in the elections. The petitioners also submitted that a writ of mandamus should be issued to direct Respondent 2 to allow its members whose dues were paid after 1-4-2025 and other similarly situated electors whose annual membership fees were due between 1-4-2025 and 31-12-2025, to cast their votes in the elections of the Kolhapur Bar Association.
The petitioners submitted that since Respondent 1, Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa exercised control over Respondent 2 and that there were functions, objects, and goals of Respondent 2 which were aligned with Respondent 1’s functions, thus, Respondent 2 would be an instrumentality of a “State” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution and it would be amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court stated that for a writ to be issued under Article 226 of the Constitution against Respondent 2, it had to be examined whether Respondent 2 was a “State or its Instrumentality”, within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution.
The Court observed that it was not possible to draw any parity regarding the statutory duties and obligations as conferred by law on the Bar Council which was constituted under a statute with that of a bar association which was an association of persons.
The Court stated that the petitioners were not without remedy as the remedy lies in the precincts of the bar association, that is, to approach the Civil Court and seek appropriate reliefs. The Court opined that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for any relief on a dispute between the member and the bar association was not maintainable.
The Court observed that the bar associations were either societies registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, or trusts, and they were governed by their own byelaws or rules. There was no pervasive control of the Government or the Bar Council on the bar associations and they were governed by a managing committee elected by its members. Further, the managing committee looks after the welfare of its members and the bar associations in the interest of its members, day-in and day-out issue circulars, notices, notifications, etc.
The Court opined that if all the said activities, actions, and decisions of the bar association were to be held to be subject to the judicial review of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, by concluding that the bar association was a ‘State’ within the meaning of Article 12, then this would certainly lead to a chaotic situation.
The Court also opined that if it allowed writ petitions on such causes, things would not stop only at the bar associations formed by advocates, as the same reasoning would be applied to associations of other professional bodies like the associations of Doctors, Chartered Accountant, Engineers, etc, which also discharged duties towards its members and citizens. Thus, it was a wide proposition that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, should be held to be maintainable, regarding any dispute between the petitioner and Respondent 2. Further, such disputes would also involve disputed questions of facts, which in any case could not be gone into in any adjudication under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The Court opined that if any decision of the bar associations was brought within the purview of Article 226, it would not be a situation conducive to the harmonious working of the bar associations, would cause impediments, and would a peril in the smooth functioning of the bar associations, or its managing committees. The said situation would lead to a possible misuse of the discretionary and summary jurisdiction of this Court.
The Court opined that merely because the advocates were governed by the Advocates Act, 1961, a relief in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution could not be granted against the bar association, as this position would be too far-fetched. The Court dismissed the present petition and stated that it was open for the petitioners to approach the appropriate Civil Court for redressal of their grievance.
[Abhijeet Appasaheb Bacche-Patil v. Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 1514, decided on 21-4-2025]
*Judgment authored by: Justice G.S. Kulkarni
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Adv. Abhishek Nandimath a/w Adv. Shardul Diwan and Adv. Advait Vajaratkar, for the Petitioner.
Buy Constitution of India HERE
