In a pivotal ruling, the Bombay High Court determined that a complaint under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act ("POSH Act") filed against the Bar Council is not maintainable. This landmark decision hinges on a crucial jurisdictional question: whether the Bar Council qualifies as a "State" under Article 12 of the Constitution, a designation which would permit judicial intervention via a writ petition under Article 226. The Court's meticulous reasoning dismantles this premise and clarifies the appropriate legal remedy.
The dispute originated when a woman advocate approached the court under the POSH Act, seeking redress against the Bar Council. The contention was premised on the statutory powers and regulatory oversight that the Bar Council wields over advocates. The petitioner contended that, as a statutory body created under the Advocates Act, the Bar Council effectively functions as a State entity, thus subjecting it to the constitutional writ mechanism.
However, the High Court rejected this argument. Drawing upon well-established legal precedents, it reaffirmed that the Bar Council, while created by statute, performs regulatory, quasi-judicial, and administrative functions distinct from those of the State. Crucially, the Court observed that though the Bar Council exercises significant authority over legal professionals, it lacks the characteristics of pervasive governmental control or executive functions typical of the State. As such, it does not fall within the ambit of Article 12. Given this, the writ petition under Article 226 was found to be untenable.
The judgment carefully analyzed the legislative and functional contours of the Bar Council, highlighting that its duties—such as administering the advocate registration process, enforcing professional ethics, and regulating conduct—do not automatically impart "State" status. This distinction is vital in constitutional law, as the availability of writ remedies depends significantly on whether a body is deemed a State or an "instrumentality of the State." Without this classification, judicial review through a writ petition becomes unavailable.
Confronted with this limitation, the Court emphasized the availability of alternate remedies. It clarified that civil suits or other statutory mechanisms under the POSH framework remain open to aggrieved parties. The Court underscored that the Bar Council, through its internal processes and adjudicatory mechanisms under the POSH Act, offers a structured route for grievance resolution. Thus, litigants are encouraged to seek relief via these established channels rather than through public law remedies reserved for State action.
This judgment holds broader implications beyond the immediate case. It reinforces the principle that statutory bodies, even when performing regulatory or quasi-judicial functions, are not automatically vested with Statehood under Article 12 merely by virtue of their creation through legislation. This distinction protects such bodies from the expansive reach of writ jurisdiction while ensuring that they remain accountable via other legal pathways.
Moreover, the Court’s reasoning aligns with the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence on the limited scope of Article 12. Its approach balances constitutional safeguards with the necessity of preserving professional autonomy. By ensuring that statutory bodies like the Bar Council remain outside writ jurisdiction unless compelling evidence of State-like control exists, the Court upholds a coherent boundary between public authority and private regulation.
Finally, the judgment preserves the integrity of both the POSH framework and the Bar Council’s internal disciplinary mechanisms. It encourages reliance on tailored processes addressing sexual harassment complaints while delineating the limits of constitutional writ review. In doing so, the Court reinforces a dual-objective framework: ensuring accessible grievance redress for advocates and preserving the constitutional demarcation of governance.
This ruling thus offers a comprehensive legal analysis regarding the limits of writ jurisdiction and affirms the autonomy of statutory bodies under India’s federal scheme, while steering aggrieved individuals toward appropriate civil and administrative remedies.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.