The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh, in a recent ruling, clarified that it cannot employ its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution to resolve internal electoral disputes within a Bar Association. This decision was rendered in the case of Advocate Abdul Basit Bhat v. District Bar Association, Shopian.
Bar Associations Not Considered ‘State’ Under Article 12
Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal presided over the case and underscored that Bar associations do not qualify as a ‘State’ as per Article 12 of the Constitution. Consequently, they fall outside the purview of writ jurisdiction. The court dismissed the petition challenging the Shopian District Bar Association’s revised eligibility criteria for candidates contesting its officer bearer elections.
Justice Nargal noted, “The District Bar Association, Shopian is not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court in respect of the dispute raised in the present petition. The controversy pertains to the internal affairs and electoral governance of a voluntary association and does not involve the discharge of any public duty or disclose the existence of a public-law element.”
Internal Matters Not Subject to Writ Jurisdiction
The court highlighted that a District Bar Association, being a voluntary group governed by its own rules, is neither a statutory body nor a ‘State’. Therefore, internal disputes do not qualify for intervention under Article 226, which is designed to address public law concerns.
The decision elaborated, “The jurisdiction under Article 226 is essentially a public law remedy. It is not intended to adjudicate every dispute arising between members of a private association and the association itself.”
While writ jurisdiction may occasionally apply to non-State entities, this is only if there is a demonstrable public interest, which was not evident in this case.
Specifics of the Contested Amendments
The petition was filed by Advocate Abdul Basit Bhat, who opposed amendments to the eligibility criteria for key association roles. The revised rules increased the required professional standing from 10 to 15 years for President and Vice-President, and from 7 to 10 years for Secretary positions.
Claims were made that these amendments were carried out without proper procedure, such as convening a valid general body meeting or obtaining member approval. Allegations were also made that the amendments were arbitrary, aiming to exclude younger advocates.
The Bar Association, represented by Advocate Mohammad Mubashir Gatoo, countered that the amendments were properly discussed and approved in a general body meeting, asserting that such internal matters should not be subject to writ jurisdiction.
Decision and Implications
The court concluded that since the Shopian District Bar Association did not originate from statutory law like the Advocates Act, 1961, it does not wield statutory powers or perform governmental functions. Hence, it cannot be classified as a ‘State’ under Article 12, making the writ petition untenable.
The court dismissed the writ petition, indicating that disputes of this nature should be addressed in civil courts. This ruling reaffirms the limitations of writ jurisdiction concerning non-statutory bodies.
