‘Free electricity, housing don’t make bar association public body’: Kerala High Court rejects plea against bar body elections

The March 16 order pointed out that “except in a case where the action of an authority or a person in question has a public character or is performing a statutory duty, the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution would not lie”.

The petitioner has other efficacious remedies, and the court believes that the matter is not suitable to be resolved in a proceeding under Article 226.

‘No public character’

• Dispute relating to the election in the bar association is purely an internal administrative affair and has no public colour or character.
• It is evident from all the judgments of the various high courts relied on by the petitioner that, except in a case where the action of an authority or a person in question has a public character or is performing a statutory duty, the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution would not lie.
• The mere fact that the association is housed in the high court building and that they are not made liable to pay electricity charges does not clothe it with the character of a public body or a public office.
• The mere fact that a writ petition could be maintained in a given case does not necessarily mean that it should be entertained by the court.
• The petitioner has other efficacious remedies, and the court believes that the matter is not suitable to be resolved in a proceeding under Article 226.

Advocate, as party-in-person 

• Advocate Lakshmana, as party-in-person, challenged the findings of the single judge.
• She placed reliance on a few interlocutory orders of the apex court and judgments of various high courts, including the Kerala High Court and contended that her petition against the association was maintainable and ought to be entertained on merits. 

Precedents 

• E Shanavas Khan v. The Kollam Bar Association and Ors (2024), the challenge was against the legality of the composition of the Internal Complaints Committee constituted by a Bar Association under the provisions of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 and an enquiry conducted by the said Committee. The writ petition was held to be maintainable.
• Jose Kuttiyani v. High Court Advocates Association (2004) held that the writ petition filed against the Association was maintainable. Therein, it was observed that the suspension of a member deprived him of the statutory benefits under the Advocates Welfare Fund Act.
• Chandrakant v. Karnataka State Bar Council (2020), a writ petition challenging the election to the Bar Association was held to be maintainable on the premise that, the advocates, who are the members of the Association, are the officers of the court, who assist in the justice delivery system and that the association is answerable to the court concerning their conduct and discharge of their professional duties.

Precedents against writ’s maintainability

• Secretary Alipore Bar Association case, it was held that Alipore Bar Association is not a state “other authority” or “agency or instrumentality” of the state within the meaning of Article 12 and “authority or person” discharging public function within the meaning of Article 226, writ against Alipore Bar Association that too in the matter of election to the Bar Association is not maintainable. 
• In the Vipin Kumar Sharma case, the court held that certain functions of the bar association can have a public character; however, it cannot extend to the resolution of a purely election dispute within the Association, which does not have any public character.
• In the Arghya Kumar Nath case, it was held that a writ against private authorities discharging public functions could be maintained if the action challenged is one done in discharge of a public function. 

Member of association 

• The executive committee of the association is a society registered under the Travancore-Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act, 1955. 
• Election to the Executive Committee of the Association for the year 2026 was held on December 16, 2025. 
• Advocate Lakshmana is a member of the association and had intended to contest the election. 
• She filed a writ petition alleging that the election was held in violation of the prescribed procedures. 
• The violations linked to the publication of the voters’ list, both draft and final, and to the failure to conduct the election by secret ballot, etc. 
• The single judge held that the association is not amenable to writ jurisdiction and accordingly dismissed the petition in limine. 

The court reiterated from a recent judgment, Grids Engineers and Contractors  v. Union Bank of India (2026), that ‘maintainability’ and ‘entertainability’ are different concepts, and merely because a writ petition is maintainable, the court is not bound to entertain it on March 16.