the Allahabad High Court noted that disputes concerning the holder of a post Bar cannot be decided by petition as bar associations are essential private bodies.
“The Bar Association remains essentially a private body and with regard to its office holder dispute, a request in brief would not normally be valid.“, observed magistrate Ashwani Kumar Mishra and judge Vikram D. Chauhan.
Essentially, the Court was hearing a writ of argument filed by a Sardar Jitendra Singh, a lawyer, who contested the election for the post of president of the Bar Association of Tehsil, Khatauli, Muzaffar Nagar District and placed second.
Filing this plea, he argued before the Court that Respondent No. 4 had been elected for the said post, but that due to certain proceedings initiated by the Bar Association, he had not taken the oath.
Therefore, the petitioner asked the court to argue that since the person who was elected to the post was not sworn in, he should be declared president of the Tehsil Bar Association, Khatauli.
Appearing for the Uttar Pradesh Bar CouncilLawyer Amit Kumar Singh said that neither the written request is sustainable nor such a course would be admissible given the accepted scenario that the petitioner did not obtain the highest votes.
In this regard, he further argued that there is no provision in the statutes that requires the second candidate to be declared president in the event that the candidate with the most votes is declared ineligible.
After hearing the argument of the lawyer of the defendant Bar Council, the Court observed that this argument was correct because the dispute concerning the member of the office of a Bar cannot be settled by way of motion because the Associations of the Bar associations are essential private organizations.
Furthermore, the Court added, in the absence of any provision in the statutes, the candidate having obtained the second highest number of votes cannot be declared President. Finally, leaving the possibility for the petitioner to address the appropriate tribunal for his grievance, the petition in brief has been entered in the archives.
Meanwhile, the Karnataka High Court ruled last year that a petition under article 226 of the constitution is admissible against a bar.
The Supreme Court had ruled in Supreme Court Bar Association v. BD Kaushik (2011) 13 CSC 774 that bars perform a public function. In 2016, the Delhi High Court ruled that a written petition is admissible against bar councils and associations.
Case title – Sardar Jitendra Singh v. Uttar Pradesh Bar Council and 3 others
Click here to download the order