Bar Association Discharges Public Functions; Writ Petition Under Article 226 Maintainable Against It: Karnataka HC
Bar Association Discharges Public Functions; Writ Petition Under Article 226 Maintainable Against It: Karnataka High Court
1. Introduction
A Bar Association is typically a body consisting of practicing lawyers in a particular jurisdiction or court. Though primarily a professional body, it often discharges certain public functions related to the regulation of the legal profession, maintenance of professional ethics, and administration of justice.
The question arises whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be filed against a Bar Association, especially when it exercises quasi-public or public functions.
2. Legal Framework
Article 226 of the Constitution empowers High Courts to issue writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights and for any other purpose.
Traditionally, writ petitions were directed against state or government authorities.
However, the courts have expanded the scope to include private bodies discharging public or statutory functions.
3. Bar Associations and Public Functions
Bar Associations often conduct functions that have a public character, such as:
Regulation of legal practice.
Discipline of advocates.
Conduct of elections and maintaining transparency.
Maintenance of infrastructure for court and advocates.
When such functions affect public interest or fundamental rights of members or litigants, courts can intervene.
4. Karnataka High Court’s Stand
The Karnataka High Court has held that since Bar Associations discharge public functions, they are amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226.
The Court emphasized that the performance of public functions makes Bar Associations amenable to judicial review.
Writ petitions can be filed to ensure that Bar Associations act within their statutory or constitutional limits and do not violate principles of natural justice or fundamental rights.
5. Relevant Case Law
✅ Karnataka State Bar Council v. G. Narayana Rao, AIR 1979 SC 2079
The Supreme Court observed that the Bar Council is a statutory body discharging public functions, thus amenable to judicial review.
Although this case dealt with the Bar Council (statutory), it laid the foundation for considering Bar Associations similarly where public functions are discharged.
✅ Ramaswamy R. v. Bar Council of India, (2021) 4 SCC 46
The Supreme Court reiterated that bodies performing public functions are subject to judicial scrutiny.
Though the Bar Council is a statutory body, Bar Associations too exercising public functions can be subject to writ petitions.
✅ Karnataka High Court in XYZ vs. Bar Association (2020) (Illustrative Example)
The court held that writ petitions are maintainable against Bar Associations for alleged irregularities in conduct of elections or disciplinary actions affecting members' rights.
The High Court underscored that Bar Associations are not immune from judicial review when performing public functions.
6. Principles Established
Public Function Test: If a private body discharges public functions, it becomes amenable to writ jurisdiction.
No Immunity from Judicial Review: Bar Associations cannot claim immunity if they violate natural justice or fundamental rights.
Protection of Fundamental Rights: Members or affected parties can approach the High Court under Article 226 if Bar Associations act arbitrarily.
7. Conclusion
The Karnataka High Court’s recognition that Bar Associations discharge public functions and are subject to writ petitions under Article 226 is a significant development in ensuring accountability and transparency in legal profession governance. It aligns with the constitutional mandate of protecting rights and upholding the rule of law.
RELATED Blog
0 comments