The Bombay High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by four advocates challenging a notice issued by the Kolhapur District Bar Association that restricted voting rights in its upcoming elections. The Division Bench comprising Justice G.S. Kulkarni and Justice Advait M. Sethna held that bar associations are not “State” or its instrumentalities within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, and therefore, writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is not maintainable for internal association disputes.
Background
The petitioners—Shri Abhijeet Appasaheb Bacche-Patil, Shri Harishchandra Sarjerao Tadakhe, Shri Amrut Suresh Ranoji, and Shri Balasaheb Dattatray Kandekar—filed Writ Petition No. 5368 of 2025 under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging a notice dated 1 April 2025 issued by the Kolhapur District Bar Association.
The impugned notice informed members that only those who cleared their membership dues before 1 April 2025 would be eligible to participate in the upcoming elections. Members paying dues after this cut-off date would not be permitted to vote. The petitioners claimed this condition was arbitrary and violated their right to participate in the electoral process.
They sought the following reliefs from the Court:
“…be pleased to quash and set aside impugned Notice dated 01.04.2025 passed by Kolhapur District Bar Association, Kolhapur… [and] be pleased to direct the Kolhapur District Bar Association… to allow those members… whose dues are payable after 01.04.2025 and other similarly situated Electors to cast their votes in upcoming annual elections…”
Arguments and Legal Issue
The key legal issue before the Court was whether the Kolhapur District Bar Association qualifies as “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution, thereby making it subject to writ jurisdiction under Article 226.
The petitioners argued that since the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa exercises regulatory control over the Kolhapur Bar Association, it should be considered an instrumentality of the State. They relied on the decisions of the Karnataka High Court (Shri Chandrakant S/o Tammanna Majagi v. Karnataka State Bar Council, 2020 SCC OnLine Kar 5403) and the Delhi High Court (PK Dash v. Bar Council of Delhi and Ors., AIR 2016 Delhi 135).
However, the Court declined to accept this argument, distinguishing between statutory bar councils and voluntary bar associations.
Court’s Analysis
The Court reiterated the distinction between statutory bodies and associations of persons. It noted:
“It is certainly not possible to draw any parity in regard to the statutory duties and obligations as conferred by law on the Bar Council… with that of a bar association which is an association of persons.”
The Court relied on its earlier decision in Rajghor Ranjhan Jayantilal v. Election Scrutiny Committee of B.B.A & Anr. (2024 SCC OnLine Bom 1118), which held that bar associations are not ‘State’ under Article 12 as they are independent associations without government funding or control.
Quoting from that precedent, the Bench observed:
“It does not receive any aid / financial assistance from the government… There is no deep or pervasive ‘State control’ in the management of its affairs. Furthermore, the functions of the Bar Association do not relate/or are governmental functions.”
In the present case, the Court clarified:
“Bar associations are either societies registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, or trusts… 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 Bench emphasised that accepting the petitioner’s argument would lead to chaos, stating:
“If we accept petitioner’s contention that the petition be entertained, in such event ‘any dispute whatsoever’ between the members and the bar associations, the High Court would be required to exercise its power of judicial review… This would certainly lead to a chaotic situation.”
Decision
The Court held that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is not maintainable in disputes between members and bar associations. The appropriate remedy lies in the civil court.
The Bench concluded:
“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.”
It further stated:
“We however, keep open the remedy of the petitioners to approach the appropriate Civil Court for redressal of their grievance, if any.”
Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
