Bar Assn's internal election disputes not ordinarily amenable to writ jurisdiction: HC

Excelsior Correspondent

JAMMU, Aug 31: Holding that jurisdiction under Article 226 is essentially a public-law remedy and is not intended to adjudicate every dispute between members of a private association and the association itself, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has dismissed a petition challenging the amended Constitution and election notification of the District Bar Association, Shopian.

Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal observed that the dispute concerned the internal affairs and electoral governance of a voluntary association and neither involved discharge of any public duty nor disclosed any public-law element.

The Court held that prescription of eligibility conditions for holding office in the Association was a matter confined to its members and did not involve any duty owed to the public at large. Accordingly, the District Bar Association, Shopian was held not amenable to writ jurisdiction in respect of the dispute.

The petition was filed by Advocate Abdul Basit Bhat, challenging the Association's amended Constitution of 2023, under which eligibility for contesting the posts of President and Vice-President was enhanced from 10 years to 15 years' standing at the Bar, while the requirement for Secretary was raised from seven to 10 years.

The petitioner also sought quashing of Election Notification No. 01 dated December 11, 2025, issued on the basis of the amended Constitution. He alleged that the amendment had been introduced without following the prescribed procedure, convening a valid General Body Meeting or obtaining approval of the Association's members.

Rejecting the challenge, the High Court held that the District Bar Association, Shopian owed neither its origin nor existence to any statute and was not created under the Advocates Act, 1961 or any other enactment."It is governed by its own Constitution framed by its members. Its office bearers are elected by advocates who are members of the Association. It does not exercise any statutory powers nor does it discharge any governmental functions," the Court observed.

The Court also found no material demonstrating deep and pervasive Government control over the Association so as to treat it as "State" or an instrumentality or agency of the State under Article 12. However, the Court clarified that merely because a body is not "State" under Article 12 does not, by itself, determine whether it can be subjected to writ jurisdiction under Article 226.

"A private body may be amenable to writ jurisdiction where it discharges a public duty or performs a public function and the action complained of has a sufficient public-law element," Justice Nargal said, adding that "in the present case there is no such element".

The Court held that the challenge to the revised eligibility criteria exclusively concerned the internal governance of the Association and the rights of its members in relation to its electoral process.

Rejecting the argument that the professional status of its members could transform its internal affairs into public functions, the Court observed that merely because the Association consists of advocates or its activities have an indirect bearing on the legal profession cannot convert its internal affairs into matters involving discharge of public functions.

The Court also noted that the petition raised disputed questions of fact. While the petitioner alleged that no General Body Meeting was convened and no valid resolution passed, the respondents maintained that notice was circulated, a meeting was held and the amendment was approved by majority vote.

Determination of these rival claims would require examination of evidence and records, which could not appropriately be undertaken in writ proceedings. The Court held that such issues were more appropriately left for adjudication before a competent civil forum.

The Court further took note of the fact that the amendment was adopted in 2023 and had remained operative, with subsequent elections allegedly conducted on its basis. It observed that a litigant who remains a silent spectator despite knowledge of an alleged illegality and approaches the Court only after a subsequent event affects his personal interest cannot, as a matter of course, seek discretionary relief under Article 226.

The Court ultimately held that the amendment neither derived from any statutory mandate nor affected any right of the general public, litigants or non-members, but operated exclusively within the Association to regulate eligibility of its members to hold office.

Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.