Kerala High Court Upholds Non-Maintainability Of Writ Petitions In Bar Association Election Disputes

The Kerala High Court on Monday (16 March) reaffirmed that disputes concerning elections to Bar Associations are matters of internal administration and cannot be challenged through writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution.A Division Bench comprising Justice Sathish Ninan and Justice P. Krishna Kumar was delivering the judgment in an appeal against dismissal of a writ petition which challenged the 2026 Executive Committee Election to the Kerala High Court Advocates' Association (KHCAA)].The appellant, a member of the Kerala High Court Advocates' Association (KHCAA), alleged procedural irregularities in the 2026 Executive Committee elections held on December 16, 2025. Her claims included improper publication of voter lists and failure to conduct the election through secret ballot.The Single Judge had dismissed the petition, holding that the Association is not amenable to writ jurisdiction. The present appeal was filed challenging this decision. The Court examined a series of precedents from various High Courts, including Vipin Kumar Sharma v The Returning Officer NDBA Elections [2026 SCC OnLine Del 311] and Arghya Kumar Nath v Prof. D.S Rawat and Ors. [2014 SCC OnLine Del 4622], which has held that certain functions pertaining to Bar Associations can have a public character, however it cannot extend to resolution of a purely election dispute within the Association. “The decisions as above are categoric that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be maintained against an Association challenging the elections to its Committee, it being purely a matter of internal management.” the Court observed. The Court examined the decisions relied on by the petitioner to contend that the writ petition against the Association is maintainable and observed 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. “Dispute relating to election in Association is purely an internal administrative affair and has no public colour or character.” the Court added. It further emphasized that election disputes typically involve contested questions of fact requiring detailed evidence, which cannot be effectively adjudicated in writ proceedings.“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.” Court noted. The Court also highlighted the distinction between “maintainability” and “entertainability” of writ petitions. Even in cases where a writ may technically lie, the High Court retains discretion to decline interference, particularly where alternative remedies exist or factual adjudication is required.“When the petitioner has other efficacious remedy and the Court is of the opinion that the matter involves determination of various factual aspects upon elaborate evidence and is not suitable to be resolved in a proceeding under Article 226, discretion is always vested with the Court, not to entertain the writ petition.” Court added. The Court thus dismissed the writ appeal.Case Title: Adv. Sangeetha Lakshmana v Registrar General and Ors. Case No: WA 362/ 2026Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 149Party-in-PersonCounsel for Respondents: Harikumar GClick Here To Read/ Download Judgment

Kerala High Court Upholds Non-Maintainability Of Writ Petitions In Bar Association Election Disputes

Anamika MJ

Tags