The Kerala High Court has held that disputes relating to elections conducted by the Kerala High Court Advocates’ Association (KHCAA), including challenges to the voters’ list, election notification, and declaration of results, cannot be entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India because such matters do not fall within the writ jurisdiction of the High Court. The judgment was delivered by Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas while dismissing a writ petition filed by a member of the Advocates’ Association challenging the 2026 election process of the KHCAA. In assessing the maintainability of the writ petition, the Court examined whether the internal election process of the Association, which is registered under the Travancore-Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act, 1955, could be subject to judicial review under Article 226, the constitutional provision empowering High Courts to issue writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights and for any other purpose.
The petitioner contended that the elections were held inside the Kerala High Court auditorium using the infrastructure of the High Court after obtaining permission from the Registrar General of the High Court and therefore argued that the election could be assailed through a writ petition. The High Court, however, observed that while Article 226 empowers it to issue writs to any person or authority, the remedy is confined to enforcement of public or statutory duties, and the KHCAA does not perform any statutory functions nor does it discharge public duties simply by virtue of its activities or membership. The Court noted that the Association is a voluntary body formed to advance the interests of its members, who are advocates practising before the High Court, and that its functions arise solely from the collective objectives agreed upon by its members rather than any statutory mandate. In this context, the Court emphasised that the election of office bearers in a voluntary association, even one associated with the legal profession, does not involve public functions that would attract writ jurisdiction.
Addressing the petitioner’s arguments, the Court observed that ceremonial roles such as the President of the Association addressing full court references and hoisting the national flag on Independence Day at the High Court premises, even if permitted by the Registrar General, do not elevate the nature of the Association or its activities to the level of public duties. The Court clarified that such roles are permissive and do not confer any vested rights that attract the exercise of writ jurisdiction. Therefore, the presence of ceremonial functions associated with the High Court’s traditions did not transform the internal elections into matters of public law. The High Court drew upon judicial precedents, including decisions where election results of Bar Associations governed by their own rules and bye-laws were held not amenable to writ jurisdiction, reinforcing the distinction between internal disputes of voluntary associations and actions involving public statutory functions. In particular, the Court referred to a decision of the Delhi High Court where it was observed that the elections of bodies such as Bar Associations, which are governed by their own rules and regulations, ordinarily cannot be challenged through writ petitions intended for enforcement of public or statutory duties.
The Court also stressed that the mere fact that elections were conducted within the High Court auditorium with the High Court’s permission did not confer on them a public character or render them subject to the High Court’s writ jurisdiction. The permission granted to use the premises of the High Court was insufficient to transform the inherently private nature of the election process into one that discharges a public duty enforceable under Article 226. The Court reiterated that the KHCAA, as a society registered under the Travancore-Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act, 1955, remains a private voluntary body, and writ petitions challenging its internal elections are not maintainable. On this basis, the High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the elections to the Advocates’ Association cannot be brought within the purview of public law to enable invocation of writ jurisdiction.
In concluding its judgment, the High Court noted that while it was not entertaining the petition under Article 226, the petitioner was at liberty to approach the appropriate forum provided under the rules and procedures governing the internal affairs of the Association to raise her grievance. The Court’s decision emphasised the principle that the extraordinary power of judicial review under Article 226 is limited to matters involving enforcement of fundamental rights or public or statutory duties, and does not extend to the internal electoral processes of voluntary associations that do not perform public functions or discharge statutory obligations. The petition was dismissed, with the Court holding that the writ petition challenging the KHCAA election was not maintainable for lack of a public law element in the Association’s election process and that disputes concerning such internal matters must be resolved through other appropriate mechanisms.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.