Bar Association Membership Disputes Private In Nature, Not Amenable To Writ Jurisdiction: Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court has held that Bar Association membership disputes are private in nature and are not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Court sadi that disputes concerning membership, suspension or debarment of members do not involve any public law element.
A Bench of Justice Shekhar B Saraf and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary made the observation while dismissing a writ petition filed by an advocate challenging his 1-year debarment from the membership of the Central Bar Association, Tehsil Gola Gokaran Nath, District Lakhimpur Kheri.
It was the case of the petitioner (Lal Bihari Verma) that he was a former president of the Bar Association and its Chief Election Officer for the January 2026 elections.
He alleged that, after conducting the election, he filed a complaint against the newly elected office-bearers for alleged illegal activities, following which he was debarred from the Association's membership for one year. He alleged that the action was retaliatory and arbitrary.
The petitioner sought quashing of the June 12, 2026 press release through which the debarment was announced.
The respondents, on the other hand, opposed the maintainability of the petition, submitting that the grievance was directed against a private Bar Association and essentially concerned an internal membership dispute.
High Court's observations
The High Court identified the "threshold question" as whether a writ petition under Article 226 could be maintained against a Bar Association in relation to an internal membership or debarment dispute.
The Bench reiterated that whether a body is amenable to writ jurisdiction does not depend merely on whether it is 'public' or 'private' in form. The relevant consideration is the “function test”, whether the impugned action involves discharge of a public duty or public function, or is a private affair.
Referring to Supreme Court judgments, including Federal Bank Ltd. v. Sagar Thomas and S. Shobha v. Muthoot Finance Ltd., the Court observed that private entities whose obligations are confined to their own members, without binding effect on the public at large, would not ordinarily fall within the scope of Article 226.
The Court also considered the Delhi High Court's decision in Sangita Rai v. New Delhi Bar Association, which held that a Bar Association registered under the Societies Registration Act is a private body of lawyers and does not perform a public function in its normal discharge of functions. The Supreme Court subsequently refused to interfere with that judgment.
The High Court, however, clarified that the function test does not automatically exclude every private body from writ jurisdiction. Writ jurisdiction may extend to private bodies exercising a regulatory or public character over an entire field.
But the Court held that this principle does not apply to a district-level voluntary Bar Association whose functions are confined to the welfare and internal regulation of its enrolled members.
Applying the principle to the present case, the Bench noted that the Central Bar Association was a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and that the dispute was essentially one concerning membership. The Court observed thus:
"One can very well argue that the legal profession as a whole possesses a public character and there can be no doubt about the same, however, according to this Court the inter se relationship between a voluntary Bar Association and its members is essentially contractual and regulatory under its own rules".
It held that disputes relating to membership or debarment must be pursued before a competent Civil Court, the Registrar of Societies, or the body designated under the bye-laws of the society or Bar Association. The Bench further held thus:
"In any case, membership dispute of the Bar Association, cannot be termed to be a public function of the Association or a dispute having any public character, so as to make the said dispute amenable to the writ Jurisdiction of this Court".
It added that matters concerning the internal administration of a society, including membership, admission, suspension or debarment, are governed by its bye-laws and "do not involve any public law element".
Accordingly, the Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and dismissed it.
However, the Court granted the petitioner liberty to pursue alternative remedies by filing a civil suit, approaching the Registrar of Societies, or approaching an authority designated under the Bar Association's bye-laws.
The bench ordered that if such an application is filed within one week, the concerned authority will decide it within 4 weeks after hearing the petitioner and other stakeholders.
Case Title - Lal Bihari Verma vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Law U.P. Lko. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 697
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 697