Madras High Court orders TN Bar Council to grant recognition to Nilgiris women lawyers body if...

The Madras High Court recently quashed the refusal of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry (BCTNP) to grant recognition to the Women Lawyers Association of Nilgiris (Association/ WLAN) [Women Lawyers Association of Nilgiris v. Secretary, Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry and ors].

A Bench of Justices MS Ramesh and V Lakshminarayanan ordered the Bar Council to grant recognition to WLAN if its application for the same has been filed in the prescribed format.

The Court also criticised the BCTNP for exceeding its authority in how it conducted a enquiry in the matter earlier, which had led to its refusal to grant recognition to the Association.

The Court observed that the Bar Council had assumed the role of a fact-finding authority and had conducted a full-fledged personal inspection, which was not required under the law governing the recognition of bar associations in Tamil Nadu.

"When the Welfare Fund Act prescribes the mode in which an enquiry requires to be conducted on an application by an association seeking recognition / registration, all other irrelevant facts discovered by the Bar Council, through its enquiry, was not only unwarranted, but also against the scope of Section 13 of the Welfare Fund Act," the Court held in its August 29 ruling.

WLAN, a registered society, had earlier flagged difficulties in getting access to toilet facilities for women lawyers in a new district court complex inaugurated in 2022 at Udhagamandalam (Ooty).

In June 2023, the Supreme Court took note of a Bar & Bench report on the issue. After the top court took notice and sought a status report, toilet facilities at the district court complex were de-sealed, and two rooms were allotted for the exclusive use of women lawyers.

Before this, in March 2023, the Association had filed an application for recognition from the State Bar Council.

However, the application was rejected in October that year, prompting the Association to approach the Madras High Court for relief.

One of the reasons cited by the State Bar Council to deny recognition to WLAN was a claim that not many women lawyers had formed part of it.

The Bar Council said that most women lawyers had expressed their wish to continue membership with the existing Nilgiris District Bar Association (NDBA).

The Court, however, noted that there was no requirement under the Tamil Nadu Advocates Welfare Fund Act, 1987 or its rules to enquire into how many members formed a bar association for the grant of recognition to the association.

The Court also questioned why the BCTNP had sought the views of the NDBA, which had opposed the formation of a new bar body, when there was no such consultation required under the Welfare Fund Act or Rules.

 "We also do not find any rationale behind the decision of the Bar Council to consult the disgruntled association, which had not approved the decision of certain women advocates who had resigned from that association and formed a separate one. In the absence of any specific provision obligating the Bar Council to consult the rival association, we do not approve the procedure adopted by them during the course of the enquiry," the Court held.

The Court further disagreed with the Bar Council's decision to recognise only one bar association in each area.

The Welfare Fund Rules allowed the Bar Council to recognise more than one bar association in each court centre for special reasons to be recorded in writing.

The Court also pointed out that it is common knowledge that multiple bar associations function in several districts/ areas including at the Madras High Court.

"The very basis of the resolution adopted by the members of the Bar Council to restrict recognition to only one association in a court centre, is neither founded on any intelligible differentia nor is in conformity with Rule 3(4) of the Welfare Fund Rules," the Court observed.

The Court, therefore, quashed the Bar Council's resolution not to grant the recognition to WLAN. It directed BCTNP to reconsider the Association's application for recognition.

The Court made it clear that the Bar Council's enquiry powers in the matter are restricted to examining whether the application contains requisite details, namely (i) whether the by laws of the association have been framed (ii) the names and addresses of office bearers; (iii) up-to-date list of members with their particulars; and (iv) ordinary place of practice of such members.

"If the application contains all these particulars ... the Bar Council shall forthwith grant recognition and registration to the petitioner's Association. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order," the Court ordered.

Senior Counsel T Murugamanickam and advocate V Rajesh represented the Women Lawyers Association of Nilgiris.

Advocate CK Chandrasekar represented the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry.

Advocates Naveen Kumar Murthi and Srujith Krishna represented the Nilgiris District Bar Association.

Advocate Kannan Kumar appeared for the Registrar General of the Madras High Court.

[Read Order]