The Delhi High Court held that bar associations are private bodies, not State instrumentalities under Article 12. A bench led by Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya said writs under Article 226, including mandamus, cannot issue against lawyers’ associations therefore.
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court recently ruled that a bar association is a private entity and does not qualify as a ‘State’ or ‘instrumentality of State’ under Article 12 of the Indian Constitution.
A Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia, emphasized that due to the private nature of lawyers’ associations, the High Court cannot issue a “writ of mandamus” to these bodies under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The Court stated,
“The functions being generally discharged by bar associations, as observed above, are to protect the interest of the individual lawyers. It is in fact a purely private entity and cannot in any manner or for any reason, whatsoever, be termed to be ‘State’ or its instrumentality or agency or authority,”
Factual Background of the Case:
The appellant is an advocate enrolled with the Bar Council in 2000 under Enrolment No. D/53-E/2000. She claims to have been in continuous legal practice since then, representing several government agencies and autonomous bodies. She has also been empanelled as a Senior Advocate with Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited since 2011 and has served on the legal panels of Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited, the Delhi Jal Board, the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, and other public authorities.
In her writ petition, the appellant sought directions in the nature of mandamus requiring the respondents to remove the lock placed on Chamber No. 279A at Patiala House Courts and to restore possession of the chamber to her without obstruction. She also sought directions to the Bar Council of Delhi and other authorities to initiate appropriate action against advocates allegedly involved in unlawful and criminal acts of trespass, along with any other relief deemed just and proper.
The appellant asserted that in 2013, one Asgar Ali approached her claiming to be the allottee of the chamber and offered it to her on rent. She accepted the arrangement and began operating from the chamber. On a later date, upon returning from Tis Hazari Courts, she allegedly found Asgar Ali along with several others forcibly occupying the chamber after breaking the lock, threatening and pressurising her to vacate.
She further alleged that office bearers of the New Delhi Bar Association failed to assist her and instead threatened her to vacate the chamber, placing an association lock on it. This rendered her belongings and official case files inaccessible, severely affecting her professional work. Despite informing the police and submitting representations to the Bar Association and judicial authorities, no effective action was taken. She later received information that her files and documents had been removed and thrown outside the chamber.
This decision came as the bench dismissed an appeal by advocate Sangita Rai, who challenged the dismissal of her writ petition concerning a dispute over the use of a lawyer’s chamber at the Patiala House Courts complex.
The Division Bench upheld the earlier ruling from a single judge who had also noted that the New Delhi Bar Association is a private body and outside the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The bench stated,
“The petition was not maintainable for the reason that by the said prayer a direction was sought to the Bar Association, which is an Association of Lawyers registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act, 1860’) and the primary object of the Bar Association is to ensure welfare of its members and take necessary steps therefore. Thus, Bar Association is not a public body so as to be covered under Article 12 of the Constitution of India.”
It Stated,
“Bar Association is a body of private individual lawyers and in normal discharge of its functions, it does not perform any function which can be said to be a public function. It is a body registered under the Act, 1860; however, its affairs are governed by its Memorandum of Association, Constitution and Rules. The functions being generally discharged by Bar Associations, as observed above, are to protect the interest of the individual lawyers. It is in fact, a purely private entity and cannot in any manner or for any reason, whatsoever, be termed to be ‘State’ or its instrumentality or agency or authority.”
Rai alleged that she was unlawfully dispossessed of a chamber she had been renting at Patiala House Courts since 2013. She contended that the allottee and others broke the lock and impeded her access to her files. She sought restoration of possession and action against the parties involved.
The Division Bench indicated that Rai should have approached the Bar Council instead of filing a writ petition in the High Court. It also mentioned that she could initiate criminal proceedings against the lawyers who unlawfully entered her chamber.
Court Said,
“It is trite that for seeking Writ of Mandamus, the person approaching the Court has to first approach the authorities concerned or to take up his/her cause with the authorities and it is only in case of failure on the part of the public authorities concerned that a Writ of Mandamus can be sought by filing a petition that too, in case failure of discharge of statutory duties by such authorities is established.”
Ultimately, the court upheld the single judge’s order and dismissed the appeal against it.
Advocates Shishir Pinaki, Rakesh Singh, and Shavnam Singh represented Sangita Rai, while Advocates Ashish Garg and Govind Singh appeared for the New Delhi Bar Association.
Case Title: Sangita Rai v New Delhi Bar Association
Read Attachment:
Read Live Coverage:
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
