Lawyers 
News

Bar association is a private body, not 'State' under Article 12: Delhi High Court

Hence, the High Court cannot issue writ of mandamus to a bar association under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Delhi High Court said.

Prashant Jha

The Delhi High Court recently held that a bar association is a private body and not a ‘State’ or ‘instrumentality of State’ under Article 12 of the Indian Constitution [Sangita Rai v New Delhi Bar Association].

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia underscored that, given the private nature of the lawyers' associations, the High Court cannot issue a writ of mandamus to them in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. 

“The functions being generally discharged by bar associations, as observed above, are to protect the interest of the individual lawyers. It is in fact, a purely private entity and cannot in any manner or for any reason, whatsoever, be termed to be ‘State’ or its instrumentality or agency or authority,” the Court said.

Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia

The Bench made the observations while dismissing an appeal filed by advocate Sangita Rai challenging the dismissal of her writ petition concerning a dispute over the use of a lawyer’s chamber at the Patiala House Courts complex.

The Division Bench upheld the single-judge order refusing to entertain the petition. The single-judge had said that the New Delhi Bar Association is a private body and not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Rai alleged that she was illegally dispossessed of a chamber at Patiala House Courts she had been using since 2013 on rent. She claimed that its allottee and others had broken open the lock and blocked her access to the files. She sought restoration of possession and action against those involved. 

The Division Bench said that Rai ought to have approached the Bar Council instead of filing a writ petition before the High Court.

It added that she can also institute criminal proceedings against the erring lawyers who broke into the chamber.

Ultimately, it upheld the single-judge’s order and rejected the appeal against the single-judge’s order. 

Advocates Shishir Pinaki, Rakesh Singh and Shavnam Singh appeared for Sangita Rai. 

Advocates Ashish Garg and Govind Singh appeared for New Delhi Bar Association. 

[Read Judgment]

Sangita Rai v New Delhi Bar Association & Ors.pdf
Preview

Adult trafficking victim can't be detained in protective home for being alone, poor: Bombay High Court

West Bengal SIR: Supreme Court orders ECI to publish 1.25 crore names having discrepancies

Delhi High Court denies bail to Kuldeep Singh Sengar in custodial death case of Unnao rape survivor's father

Another petition before Supreme Court against BCI's 3-year-ban on opening new law colleges

P&H High Court refuses to entertain PIL against Aaj Tak, Anjana Om Kashyap for calling Valmiki a dacoit

SCROLL FOR NEXT