The Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed a petition moved by the High Court Advocates Bar Association against State Bar Council’s refusal to recognise it as a separate bar association.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Jabalpur: The dismissal of a petition by the Madhya Pradesh High Court has shed light on the intricacies of bar association recognition, emphasizing the significance of existing frameworks in fulfilling the objectives outlined by pertinent legislation.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Vivek Agarwal and Justice Avanindra Kumar Singh rendered a verdict dismissing the petition lodged by the High Court Advocates Bar Association. This association, representing a breakaway faction of the Madhya Pradesh High Court Bar Association and led by certain Senior Advocates, sought separate recognition from the State Bar Council, a plea that had been previously rejected in 2018.
The crux of the court’s decision rested on the absence of justifiable grounds for the establishment of a parallel bar association, particularly when the objectives enshrined within the Advocates Act of 1961 and the Adhivakta Kalyan Nidhi Adhiniyam of 1982 were deemed to be adequately addressed by the existing bar association. The Bench articulated,
“Prima facie there is no justification for recognizing a parallel body without there being any averment that their members are being not administered the socially beneficial provisions of either the Advocates Act of 1961 or the Act of 1982.”
Central to the court’s reasoning was the observation that the welfare schemes intended for advocates were effectively implemented through recognized bar associations. Notably, the petitioner-association’s members, numbering around 330, were already beneficiaries of such schemes by virtue of their dual membership in either the High Court Bar Association or district Bar Association, both duly recognized by the Bar Council.
The Court at the outset noted that the Advocates Act was enacted to have an integration of the Bar into
“a single class of legal practitioner known as advocates” .
“The purpose of a Bar Association mainly revolves with an object to seek implementation of the welfare schemes for the advocates,”
–it said further.
The court underscored the fundamental purpose of a bar association, highlighting its role in advocating for the implementation of welfare schemes for advocates.
It elucidated that the Advocates Act primarily aimed for the integration of the legal profession into a unified class of practitioners known as advocates, with the only discernible division being between senior advocates and other advocates based on merit.
“There is neither a pleading of non-availability of welfare scheme benefits nor any averment in this regard,”
–the Court said.
In light of these considerations, the court concluded that the State Bar Council’s decision to deny recognition to the petitioner-association did not entail any illegality, irrationality, or procedural impropriety.
It emphasized that the petitioners failed to establish any deprivation of fundamental freedoms or benefits resulting from the denial of separate recognition, especially considering their concurrent membership in recognized bar associations.
“Thus, when it is not contended that by denying the recognition, the act of the State Bar Council has caused any affect to the fundamental freedom of petitioner Association, it cannot be said that petitioners have any right to seek separate recognition without there being any object for the same, specially when it has failed to make out a case that its members are being denied benefits of the welfare scheme, which they are even otherwise getting by virtue of their dual membership, High Court Bar Association or district Bar Association which are recognized Bar Associations,” the Court ruled.
Thus, the verdict underscored the necessity for substantive justifications when seeking separate recognition, particularly in instances where existing frameworks adequately cater to the objectives and welfare schemes envisaged by relevant legislation.
CASE TITLE:
High Court Advocates Bar Association vs Bar Council of India and Others
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Bar Council
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
