Kerala High Court Advocates' Association Election Disputes Not Amenable To Writ Jurisdiction: Kerala High Court

Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas delivered the judgement while dismissing a writ petition filed by a member of the KHCAA challenging the 2026 Association elections, including the voters' list, election notification, and the declaration of results.

The Court examined whether the Bar Association which is registered under the Travancore-Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act, 1955 and its internal election process, are amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The petitioner has submitted that the elections were held inside the High Court Auditorium using the infrastructure of the High Court after obtaining permission from the Registrar General of the High Court and hence the election can be assailed through a writ petition.

The Court observed that although the Article 226 empowers High Courts to issue writs to any person or authority, the remedy is confined to enforcement of public or statutory duties.

Analysing the constitution and objectives of the KHCAA, the Court noted that the Association is a voluntary body registered as a society, formed to advance the interests of its members, who are advocates practising before the High Court. It does not discharge any statutory or public duty merely by virtue of its membership or activities.

The petitioner has also submitted that the President of the Association addresses the Full Court Reference and even hoists the flag on Independence Day at the High Court premises, thus the posts in the Association are not private posts within a voluntary society, but institutional positions and its functions are intricately linked to the life of the High Court.

The Court observed that these were ceremonial roles which are permissive in nature and are not based on any right.

“If the President of the Association has hoisted the flag on any ceremonial function and addresses the Court during Full Court References, the same are only based on permissions and cannot be elevated to the status of a vested right nor can it confer upon the Association, the character of discharging a public duty.” Court observed.

The Court drew a distinction between situations where writ jurisdiction has been exercised against Bar Associations by examining the precedents cited by the petitioner and noted that decisions revolve around different sets of facts and a parallel cannot be drawn with the instant case.

The Court emphasised that elections to Bar Associations do not involve any public function and lack the necessary public law element to attract Article 226. Reliance was placed on Arghya Kumar Nath v Prof. D.S Rawat & Others 92014 SCC OnLine Del 4622], where the Delhi High Court observed that results of elections of bodies such as Bar Associations, which are governed by their own Bye-laws, Rules and Regulations can ordinarily not be challenged by invoking writ jurisdiction which lies primarily for enforcement of public/statutory duties.

The Court further noted that the mere fact that elections were conducted inside the High Court auditorium, with permission from the Registrar General, was insufficient to confer a public character on the process.

“The permission granted by the Registrar General of the High Court to conduct the elections inside the High Court Auditorium cannot give the election a public character or enable an aggrieved person to invoke the public law remedy. Election to the Kerala High Court Advocates' Association does not have a public character and cannot be brought within the purview of a public duty” Court noted.

The Court further relied on Anand Joseph v District Collector and Ex-Officio President of the Ernakulam [2024 (4) KHC 171], and held that writ petition is not maintainable against a society registered under the Travancore–Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act, 1955, and reinforced the statutory bar to invoking writ jurisdiction against such bodies.

The Court thus held that the writ petition challenging the elections to the Kerala high Court Advocates' Association is not maintainable. It also noted that the petitioner can approach the appropriate forum to raise her grievance.

Case Title: Sangeetha Lakshmana v Registrar General and Ors.

Case No: WP(C) 302/ 2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 46

Counsel for Petitioner: Sangeetha Lkshmana (Party-in-person)

Counsel for Respondents: Harikumar G (HC)