In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court addressed the constitutional status of bar associations, determining that they do not qualify as 'State' entities under Article 12 of the Indian Constitution. This decision emerged from a case where four advocates contested a notice from the Kolhapur District Bar Association (KDBA), which mandated payment of membership fees by April 1, 2025, as a prerequisite for voting in upcoming bar elections. The petitioners argued that such a directive infringed upon their rights and sought judicial intervention under Article 226, which allows High Courts to issue writs against 'State' bodies.
A division bench comprising Justices Girish Kulkarni and Advait Sethna examined the organizational structure and functioning of bar associations. They observed that these associations are typically registered as societies under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, or established as trusts, operating under their own bylaws and rules. Importantly, the court noted the absence of deep or pervasive governmental control over these entities. Bar associations are managed by elected committees and function autonomously, without direct interference from the government or the Bar Council.
The court emphasized that bar associations primarily serve the welfare of their members, issuing circulars and notifications pertinent to their internal governance. They do not perform public functions or duties that would warrant classification as 'State' under Article 12. Accepting the petitioners' contention would imply that every internal decision or dispute within a bar association could be subjected to judicial review, leading to an untenable situation where High Courts would be inundated with matters best resolved internally.
Highlighting the broader implications, the bench pointed out that Maharashtra alone has 36 districts, each potentially hosting multiple bar associations. If each of these were considered 'State' entities, it would set a precedent requiring judicial oversight over a vast number of professional associations, extending beyond the legal fraternity to other professions. Such a scenario would not only burden the judiciary but also undermine the autonomy of professional bodies.
In conclusion, the Bombay High Court dismissed the petition, reaffirming that bar associations, given their organizational structure and functions, do not fall within the ambit of 'State' as defined in Article 12 of the Constitution. This ruling delineates the boundaries of judicial intervention, preserving the self-regulatory nature of professional associations while ensuring that the judiciary's focus remains on matters of public interest and constitutional significance.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.