9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (3) TMI 1446 - HC - Indian LawsMaintainability of Petition - Rejection of nomination form for election to the membership of the standing committee - Validity of withdrawal of the proposer s consent - Whether Bombay Bar Association is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India - HELD THAT - We are not persuaded to accept the contentions as urged on behalf of the Petitioner that any relief can be granted to the Petitioner by entertaining this Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. This firstly for the reason that we cannot accept the Petitioner s contention that the Bombay Bar Association is a State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. We are informed by Mr. Tally that the Bombay Bar Association is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act 1860 having its bye-laws and Rules. It does not receive any aid / financial assistance from the government to meet its expenditures nor does the government have any other form of controlling stake either in the establishment or in the management or administration of the bar association. There is no deep or pervasive State control in the management of its affairs. Furthermore the functions of the Bombay Bar Association do not relate/or are governmental functions. For all these reasons the Bombay Bar Association cannot be held to be a State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Thus on this ground alone we cannot entertain this Petition. We may observe that the alternate remedy for the Petitioner if at all would be to file a Civil Suit for redressal of any election grievance which the Petitioner has. Be that as it may the issues which are raised in the Petition concern the elections of the Standing Committee of the bar association. Election itself is a creature of the statute. Such elections are held according to the Rules and Regulations. If the Petitioner has any grievance regarding the same certainly the remedy for the Petitioner cannot be to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court. Needless to observe as fairly stated by Mr. Tally if the Petitioner has any grievance she is free to make a representation to the standing Committee of the Bombay Bar Association which would look into all the concerns raised by the Petitioner. Before parting we may clarify that our observations as made in this judgment are confined in the context of the petitioner s case which raises issues in regard to the elections of the bar association. Hence our judgment ought not to be construed to have delved on any other issues which are not before us. Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal questions considered by the Court in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India were:
2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1: Whether Bombay Bar Association is a 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution Relevant legal framework and precedents: Article 12 defines 'State' to include the Government and Parliament of India, the Government and Legislature of each State, and all local or other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India. The Supreme Court has held that to qualify as 'State', an entity must satisfy tests such as receiving financial aid from the government, being under pervasive government control, or performing public/governmental functions. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court noted that the BBA is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, governed by its own bye-laws and rules. It does not receive any government aid or financial assistance, nor is the government involved in its management or administration. The Court found no deep or pervasive State control over the BBA's affairs. Further, the functions of the BBA are not governmental functions. Application of law to facts: Given the absence of government control or aid and the private nature of its functions, the Court concluded that the BBA cannot be regarded as a 'State' under Article 12. Treatment of competing arguments: The petitioner contended that the writ petition is maintainable under Article 226 on the premise that BBA is a State. The Court rejected this, relying on the nature of BBA and established legal tests. Conclusion: The petition under Article 226 is not maintainable as the BBA is not a State within the meaning of Article 12. Issue 2: Validity of rejection of nomination form due to withdrawal of proposer's consent Relevant legal framework and precedents: The elections of the BBA are governed by its own Rules and Regulations. The scrutiny committee's role is to ensure compliance with these rules. The petitioner's nomination was initially proposed and seconded but the proposer withdrew consent before the last date of submission. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court observed that the election is a creature of statute (or rules) and must be conducted in accordance with prescribed procedures. The petitioner sought to challenge the rejection of her nomination on the ground that no rules permit invalidation of a nomination merely because the proposer withdrew consent, and that she should have been allowed to replace the proposer. Key evidence and findings: The scrutiny committee rejected the nomination on 17 February 2024, prior to the election date of 29 February 2024, due to the proposer's withdrawal. The petitioner did not have any rules or provisions before the Court that allowed replacement of the proposer after withdrawal. Application of law to facts: The Court held that in absence of any rule permitting replacement of proposer or any provision to deal with belated withdrawals, the scrutiny committee's decision to reject the nomination was in accordance with the existing rules. Treatment of competing arguments: The petitioner argued that the rejection violated principles of natural justice and equality of opportunity. The Court noted that the petitioner was not pressing all reliefs but only sought directions for replacement of proposer and setting aside the scrutiny committee's decision. The Court found no legal basis to interfere with the internal election process or the scrutiny committee's decision in the absence of statutory provisions or rules allowing such relief. Conclusion: The rejection of the nomination form due to withdrawal of proposer's consent was valid under the existing rules; no relief could be granted to the petitioner on this ground. Issue 3: Maintainability of writ petition for election grievances of a private association Relevant legal framework and precedents: Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is available against 'State' or authorities performing public functions. Private associations not qualifying as 'State' are generally outside the scope of writ jurisdiction. Remedies for election disputes in private bodies are usually civil suits or internal grievance redressal mechanisms. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court reiterated that since BBA is not a State, writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked to challenge its election processes. The Court emphasized that elections are governed by the association's rules and any grievance must be addressed internally or through civil remedies. Application of law to facts: The petitioner's grievance relates to internal elections of a private association. The Court observed that the petitioner could make a representation to the Standing Committee of the BBA or file a civil suit if aggrieved. Treatment of competing arguments: The petitioner sought judicial intervention to stay election results and direct replacement of proposer. The Court declined to interfere, noting that the election was already concluded and results declared, and that writ jurisdiction was not the appropriate remedy. Conclusion: The writ petition is not maintainable to challenge internal elections of a private association like the BBA. The petitioner's remedy lies outside writ jurisdiction. 3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS The Court held: "We cannot accept the Petitioner's contention that the Bombay Bar Association is a 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution of India... The Bombay Bar Association is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, having its bye-laws and Rules. It does not receive any aid / financial assistance from the government... nor does the government have any other form of controlling stake... The functions of the Bombay Bar Association do not relate/or are governmental functions." "Hence, on this ground alone, we cannot entertain this Petition." "Election itself is a creature of the statute. Such elections are held according to the Rules and Regulations. If the Petitioner has any grievance regarding the same, certainly the remedy for the Petitioner cannot be to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court." "If the Petitioner has any grievance, she is free to make a representation to the standing Committee of the Bombay Bar Association, which would look into all the concerns raised by the Petitioner." Final determination: The writ petition filed under Article 226 challenging the rejection of the nomination form and seeking to stay the elections was dismissed as not maintainable. The Court declined to interfere with the internal election process of the BBA, holding that the BBA is not a State under Article 12 and that the petitioner's remedy lies in civil or internal proceedings.
|
