The Allahabad High Court dismissed a plea by the Civil Bar Association, Basti, seeking the UP government’s help to pay its electricity bills, stating there’s no legal duty on the State to cover such expenses. The court said lawyers must bear financial responsibility for facilities they use.
Prayagraj: The Allahabad High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by the Civil Bar Association, District Basti, which had requested directions to the Uttar Pradesh Government to clear its pending and future electricity bills.
The Division Bench comprising Justices Saumitra Dayal Singh and Indrajeet Shukla ruled that there is no legal or statutory obligation on the State to bear the electricity expenses of Bar Associations.
The Court observed that lawyers, being independent professionals, must take financial responsibility for the facilities they use within court premises.
The petition was filed by the Civil Bar Association, represented by Senior Advocate Arun Kumar Gupta and Advocate Ashutosh Pandey.
They argued that advocates perform a “public duty integral to the administration of justice” and, therefore, it is the responsibility of the State to provide “minimum facilities, including electricity” for Bar rooms, libraries, and office spaces situated in court complexes.
The Association had sought a writ of mandamus directing the government to pay the dues already accumulated and to continue paying future bills regularly.
To strengthen their argument, the petitioners relied on several judicial precedents. They cited the Supreme Court’s decision in Supreme Court Bar Association v. B.D. Kaushik (2011) and rulings from the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Vinod Kumar Bharadwaj vs. State of M.P. and Others (2013), and from the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Bar Association, Zira vs. State of Punjab and Others (2017).
These judgments had observed that Bar facilities form part of the judicial complex and should be maintained by the government.
The petitioners submitted that the Basti Bar Association did not have sufficient funds to pay the outstanding electricity dues raised by the Purvanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited (PVVNL). Members had already pooled Rs. 1.27 lakh to prevent the disconnection of the power supply.
The Association also requested that
“no coercive action be taken until the State assumed responsibility for the bills.”
The State government, however, opposed the plea. The Standing Counsel contended that the B.D. Kaushik judgment cited by the petitioners was irrelevant, as it dealt with the “one person, one vote” principle in Bar Association elections and not with electricity payments.
The State maintained that there was no government policy or statutory duty requiring it to pay for electricity consumed by Bar Associations, emphasizing that such facilities are for private practitioners and “not part of the court’s functional infrastructure.”
Supporting the State’s stand, counsel for the High Court pointed out that as per existing state policy, while the government may construct buildings for Bar rooms and libraries, the responsibility for paying electricity and maintenance charges lies with the occupants — the lawyers themselves. The counsel clarified that “no exception had ever been made to this rule.”
After hearing both sides, the Bench concluded that a writ of mandamus can be issued only when there is a pre-existing legal duty that a statutory authority has failed to perform. Since there was no such obligation on the State in this matter, the Court found no reason to entertain the petition.
The Bench clearly stated that,
“No statutory duty exists on the State to either pay for arrears or future dues of electricity consumed by the Civil Bar Association, Basti.”
The Court further expressed its “respectful disagreement” with the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s view in Vinod Kumar Bharadwaj, which had held that lawyers are entitled to free electricity as officers of the court.
ALSO READ: “Sham Trials Must Not Go Unchecked”: Supreme Court Reopens 1984 Anti-Sikh Riot Acquittals
While recognising the crucial role advocates play in the justice delivery system, the Allahabad High Court clarified that this parity “cannot extend to financial obligations of the State exchequer.”
The judgment thus firmly held that Bar Associations must bear their own electricity expenses and that the State cannot be compelled to pay such bills in the absence of a statutory mandate.
Case Title:
Civil Bar Association District Basti and Another vs. State of UP and 4 Others
Click Here to Read More Reports on 1984 Anti-Sikh Riots
