The Bombay High Court has held that the members of Bar Association cannot file writs against Bar Association.
The bench of Justice G. S. Kulkarni znd Justice Advait M. Sethna has observed that 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.
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed challenging the notice dated 01 April 2025 issued by the Kolhapur District Bar Association, Kolhapur, whereby the members are informed that the dues payable by its members be cleared and only after such dues are cleared, the members would be considered eligible, to participate in the proposed elections. The notice also informs that those members who would make such payments after 1 April 2025, would not be eligible to participate and/or cast vote in the election.
The petitioner contended that such notice as issued by the Kolhapur District Bar Association is arbitrary and illegal affecting their legal right to participate in the elections.
The petitioner sought the directions for 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, be allowed to cast their votes in the elections of the Kolhapur Bar Association.
The court opined that things would not stop only at the bar associations formed by advocates, as the same logic would be required to be applied to associations of other professional bodies like the associations of Doctors, Chartered Accountant, Engineers to name a few, which also discharge duties towards its members and citizens. Thus, it is a proposition too wide that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, be held to be maintainable, in regard to any inter se dispute between the petitioner and respondent Bar Association. The invariably dispute would also involve disputed questions of facts, which in any event cannot be gone into in any adjudication under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Case Details
Case Title: Shri. Abhijeet Appasaheb Bacche-Patil Versus The Bar Council Of Maharashtra And Goa
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 5368 Of 2025
Date: 21 APRIL 2025
Counsel For Petitioner: Adv. Abhishek Nandimath a/w Adv. Shardul Diwan and Adv. Advait Vajaratkar
Read More: CBI Books Four CGST Officials for Illegal Search and Attempt to Extort Private Firm in Nagpur
