'Internal Dispute, Not Amenable To Writ Jurisdiction': J&K&L High Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Bar Association Election Rules

Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal held that the District Bar Association, Shopian is a voluntary association governed by its own Constitution and Bye-laws and neither falls within the definition of “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution nor discharges a public duty in regulating eligibility for its own office-bearers. The Court consequently dismissed the writ petition as not maintainable.

Through his plea, the petitioner, an Advocate and member of the District Bar Association, Shopian, challenged the amended Constitution of the Association, whereby the eligibility for contesting the posts of President and Vice-President was enhanced from 10 years to 15 years' standing at the Bar, while the eligibility for Secretary was increased from seven to ten years.

He also challenged the election notification issued on the basis of the amended Constitution. According to the petitioner, the amendment had been introduced without following the prescribed procedure, without convening a valid General Body Meeting and without obtaining approval of the members. He alleged that the amendment was designed to exclude him and similarly situated younger advocates from contesting the Association elections.

The respondents, on the other hand, maintained that the Association was a voluntary body and that its elections and eligibility conditions were matters of internal administration. They submitted that a General Body Meeting had been convened in 2023, notice had been circulated through the official WhatsApp group and the amendment had thereafter been approved by majority resolution.

Adjudicating upon the matter Justice Nargal opined that the preliminary objection regarding maintainability went to the root of the matter and therefore had to be decided before examining the merits of the challenge.

Expounding on the matter the Court underscored that while Article 226 has a wider ambit than Article 32 and a writ can, in an appropriate case, be issued against a private body performing a public duty, the existence of a public duty remains the foundational requirement for issuing a writ against a non-statutory body. Justice Nargal observed,

“A body need not necessarily fall within the ambit of Article 12 to be amenable to the writ jurisdiction under Article 226. What is required to be examined, in the case of a private body, is whether it discharges a public duty or performs a public function and whether the action complained of has a sufficient public-law element.”

Bar Association Not “State” Under Article 12

Applying the constitutional tests, the Court found that the District Bar Association, Shopian owed neither its origin nor existence to any statute. It was created and governed by its members through its own Constitution, its office-bearers were elected by its members and it exercised no statutory powers or governmental functions. The Court accordingly held,

“There is no material to suggest that the respondent-Association is a statutory body or that it owes its existence to any enactment. It is a voluntary association of advocates governed by its own Constitution and Bye-laws, with its office-bearers elected by its members.”

The Court further found no material demonstrating any deep or pervasive governmental control over the Association and therefore concluded that it could not be regarded as “State” or an instrumentality or agency of the State under Article 12.

Advocates' Role In Administration Of Justice Not Enough

The petitioner had argued that the Association performed functions of a public character, including representation of public opinion, public service and legal aid, and that its members played an important role in the administration of justice.

The Court, however, drew a distinction between the professional significance of advocates and the legal character of the particular function being challenged. It held that the fact that an association consists of advocates cannot, by itself, transform all its activities into public functions.

“The mere fact that the members of the Association are advocates, or that the legal profession has an important role in the administration of justice, cannot by itself render every act or the decision of the Association a public function.”, the bench remarked.

Election Eligibility Is Internal Affair Of Association

According to the Court, the controversy before it related exclusively to the amendment of the Association's Constitution concerning the eligibility of its members to contest the offices of President, Vice-President and Secretary.

Justice Nargal held that such regulation was neither statutory in character nor a public duty owed by the Association to the public at large.

“The impugned action thus relates exclusively to the internal governance of the Association and to the rights of its members in relation to its electoral process. Such a function is neither statutory in character nor shown to be a public duty owed by the Association to the public at large.”, he opined.

The Court therefore found that the dispute lacked the requisite public-law element necessary for invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226.

Apart from the absence of a public-law element, the Court found that the petition raised several disputed questions of fact. The petitioner alleged that no General Body Meeting had been convened, no notice had been issued and no valid resolution had been passed. The respondents disputed each of these assertions and claimed that notice had been circulated, a meeting held and the amendment approved by majority vote.

The Court observed,

“Determination of these rival assertions would necessarily require examination of evidence and scrutiny of records. Such an exercise cannot be undertaken in writ proceedings.”

Concluding that the dispute concerned the internal management and electoral governance of a voluntary Bar Association and did not involve any public duty or sufficient public-law element, the Court held that the District Bar Association, Shopian was not amenable to writ jurisdiction in the circumstances of the case.

Accordingly, the writ petition was accordingly dismissed as not maintainable, along with all connected applications.

Case Title: Advocate Abdul Basit Bhat v. District Bar Association Shopian & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 326

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment