2025 (5) TMI 1520 - HC - Indian Laws

Challenge to notice restricting voting rights of members who have not cleared dues by a specified date - legal right to participate in the elections - prayer for issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the Kolhapur District Bar Association to allow its members whose dues are paid after 1 April 2025 and other similarly situated electors whose annual membership fees are due between 1 April 2025 and 31 December 2025. HELD THAT - A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Rajghor Ranjhan Jayantilal vs. Election scrutiny committee of B.B.A Anr. 2024 (3) TMI 1446 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT was considering a similar challenge in regard to the elections of the Bombay Bar Association when the Court held that a writ petition on such cause was not maintainable as the Bombay Bar Association was not a State within the purview of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. It was observed that a bar association being an association of persons having its by-laws and rules does not receive any aid/financial assistance from the government exchequer nor would the government have any control or stake either in the establishment or in the management of the Bar Association. It was held that in the absence of there being any deep or pervasive State control in the management of the affairs the Bar Association cannot be held to be a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The bar associations are either societies registered under the Societies Registration Act 1860 or trusts they are governed by their own bye-laws or rules. Certainly there is no deep or pervasive control of the Government or even of the Bar Council on the bar associations. They are governed by a managing committee which is elected by its members. 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 State of Maharashtra has 36 districts each district has number of talukas and each taluka is likely to have a bar association which would be governed by their own rules and regulations. If petitioner s contention that the petition be entertained is accepted 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 by entertaining writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution and adjudicate such disputes. The relationship between the bar association and its members on anything to do with the functioning of the bar association is circumscribed/governed and controlled by the rules of the bar association to which the members subscribe when they accept the membership of the bar association. If this be so merely for the reason that the advocates are governed by the Advocates Act a relief in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be granted against the bar association. Conclusion - i) The Kolhapur District Bar Association is not a State or instrumentality thereof under Article 12; hence writ jurisdiction under Article 226 does not apply. ii) The notice restricting voting rights of members who have not cleared dues by 01 April 2025 is not arbitrary or illegal in a manner warranting writ intervention. iii) Members whose dues become payable after 01 April 2025 are not entitled to vote as a matter of right enforceable by writ jurisdiction. Petiiton dismissed.

Summary

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered in the judgment are:

- Whether the Kolhapur District Bar Association (respondent no. 2), which issued a notice restricting voting rights of members who have not cleared dues by a specified date, is amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as a "State" or "instrumentality of State" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution.

- Whether the notice dated 01 April 2025 issued by the Bar Association, restricting voting rights of members who fail to clear dues by that date, is arbitrary and illegal, infringing the legal right of members to participate in elections.

- Whether members whose dues become payable after 01 April 2025 should be allowed to participate in elections despite the notice.

- The maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226 challenging internal election processes and decisions of a Bar Association, which is a private association governed by its own rules and by-laws.

- The appropriate forum and remedy for disputes between members and the Bar Association regarding election rights and dues.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Whether the Bar Association is a "State" or "instrumentality of State" under Article 12 of the Constitution so as to be amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Article 12 of the Constitution 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 writ jurisdiction under Article 226 extends to "State" entities. The issue of whether a Bar Association is a "State" or "instrumentality of State" has been considered in various judgments, including the decisions cited by the petitioner from Karnataka and Delhi High Courts. However, the Bombay High Court's Division Bench decision in Rajghor Ranjhan Jayantilal vs. Election Scrutiny Committee of B.B.A. (2024) is a key precedent rejecting the contention that a Bar Association is a "State" under Article 12.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court distinguished between statutory bodies constituted under law, such as the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa, and Bar Associations, which are voluntary associations of persons governed by their own by-laws and rules. The Court emphasized that the Bar Association does not receive government aid or financial assistance, nor does the government exercise any control or stake in its establishment or management. There is no deep or pervasive State control over the Bar Association's affairs. Consequently, the Bar Association cannot be considered a "State" or instrumentality thereof within the meaning of Article 12.

Key Evidence and Findings: The petitioner's averments that the Bar Council exercises control over the Bar Association and that their functions are aligned were found insufficient to establish State control. The Court relied on the absence of government funding, control, or management involvement to conclude the Bar Association is a private entity.

Application of Law to Facts: Applying the principles from the Rajghor Ranjhan Jayantilal case and others, the Court found no basis to hold the Kolhapur District Bar Association as a "State" under Article 12. Therefore, the writ petition under Article 226 was not maintainable against the Bar Association.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The petitioner's reliance on decisions from other High Courts was considered but distinguished on facts and legal reasoning. The Court rejected the argument that the Bar Association's alignment with the Bar Council's functions converts it into a State instrumentality.

Conclusion: The Bar Association is not a "State" under Article 12; hence, writ jurisdiction under Article 226 does not extend to it.

Issue 2: Whether the notice restricting voting rights of members who have not cleared dues by 01 April 2025 is arbitrary and illegal

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The election process of Bar Associations is governed by their own rules and by-laws. The Advocates Act governs advocates but does not convert Bar Associations into State entities. The Court referred to the principle that internal disputes in voluntary associations are to be resolved within the association or civil courts, not by writ jurisdiction.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court observed that the elections are creatures of statute and rules, and any grievance related to election procedures or notices must be addressed through the internal mechanisms or civil courts. It noted that entertaining writ petitions on such issues would lead to chaotic judicial interference in the functioning of Bar Associations, which are numerous and autonomous.

Key Evidence and Findings: The petitioner failed to demonstrate that the notice was beyond the Bar Association's authority or that it violated any fundamental or legal right enforceable by writ jurisdiction. The Court emphasized that the relationship between members and the Bar Association is governed by the by-laws to which members subscribe.

Application of Law to Facts: The Court applied the principle that disputes regarding membership dues and election eligibility are contractual or civil in nature, not constitutional issues warranting writ intervention. The petitioner's challenge to the notice was therefore misplaced in the writ jurisdiction.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The petitioner argued that the notice was arbitrary and illegal, infringing voting rights. The Court rejected this, holding that the Bar Association's rules govern such matters and that judicial review under Article 226 is not the appropriate remedy.

Conclusion: The notice restricting voting rights for non-payment of dues by a specified date is not subject to writ jurisdiction and is not found to be illegal or arbitrary by the Court.

Issue 3: Whether members whose dues become payable after 01 April 2025 should be allowed to participate in elections

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The Bar Association's rules and by-laws determine eligibility criteria for elections. The Court noted that the petitioner's prayer to allow members with dues payable after 01 April 2025 to vote is a matter of internal policy and governance.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court held that such internal policy decisions are not amenable to judicial review under Article 226. It observed that members accept the rules upon joining and disputes regarding eligibility must be resolved within the association or civil courts.

Key Evidence and Findings: No statutory or constitutional provision was shown to mandate that members with dues payable after a certain date must be allowed to vote. The Bar Association's discretion in framing election rules was upheld.

Application of Law to Facts: The Court applied the principle of contractual governance of associations, concluding that the petitioner's claim for mandamus directing the Bar Association to allow such members to vote is not maintainable in writ jurisdiction.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The petitioner's argument for enfranchisement of members with dues payable after the cut-off date was rejected on the basis that the Bar Association's rules govern such matters and judicial interference would disrupt the association's functioning.

Conclusion: The Court declined to grant relief to allow members with dues payable after 01 April 2025 to participate in elections.

Issue 4: Maintainability of writ petition under Article 226 challenging internal election processes and decisions of a Bar Association

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The Court relied heavily on precedents including Rajghor Ranjhan Jayantilal and Dilip Shridhar Modgi cases, which held that Bar Associations are private bodies not subject to writ jurisdiction. It also noted that writ jurisdiction is not available for disputes involving questions of fact or contractual issues within private associations.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court reasoned that entertaining writ petitions against Bar Associations for internal disputes would lead to judicial chaos, given the number of Bar Associations and their autonomous functioning. It emphasized that the proper remedy lies in civil courts or internal dispute resolution mechanisms.

Key Evidence and Findings: The Court found no statutory or constitutional basis for writ jurisdiction over Bar Associations. It noted the absence of government control or funding and the private nature of the associations.

Application of Law to Facts: The Court applied the principle that writ jurisdiction is limited to State actions and not private associations' internal governance. The petitioner's writ petition was thus held not maintainable.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The petitioner's reliance on the Advocates Act and Bar Council's control was rejected as insufficient to convert the Bar Association into a State entity. The Court emphasized the need to avoid misuse of writ jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The writ petition challenging the Bar Association's election notice and eligibility criteria is not maintainable under Article 226.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

- "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 which is constituted under a statute with that of a bar association which is an association of persons."

- "In the absence of there being any deep or pervasive State control in the management of the affairs, the Bar Association cannot be held to be a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India."

- "If all such activities, actions and decisions of the bar association are to be held to be subject, to the judicial review of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, by reaching to a conclusion that the bar association is a 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, in our opinion, this would certainly lead to a chaotic situation."

- "The relationship between the bar association and its members on anything to do with the functioning of the bar association is circumscribed/governed and controlled by the rules of the bar association, to which the members subscribe, when they accept the membership of the bar association."

- "Merely for the reason that the advocates are governed by the Advocates Act, a relief in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be granted against the bar association."

- "We are thus not inclined to entertain this writ petition. We however, keep open the remedy of the petitioners to approach the appropriate Civil Court for redressal of their grievance, if any."

Final determinations:

- The Kolhapur District Bar Association is not a "State" or instrumentality thereof under Article 12; hence, writ jurisdiction under Article 226 does not apply.

- The notice restricting voting rights of members who have not cleared dues by 01 April 2025 is not arbitrary or illegal in a manner warranting writ intervention.

- Members whose dues become payable after 01 April 2025 are not entitled to vote as a matter of right enforceable by writ jurisdiction.

- Writ petitions challenging internal election processes and decisions of Bar Associations are not maintainable; the appropriate remedy lies in civil courts or internal dispute resolution.

- The writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.