Bar Associations Are Private Bodies Protecting Lawyers’ Interests, Not ‘State’ Under Article 12: Delhi High Court
A woman advocate appealed against a Single Judge’s order dismissing her plea seeking directions to the Bar Council of Delhi to act against lawyers who allegedly trespassed into her chamber.
The Delhi High Court has held that Bar Associations neither discharge public functions nor fall within the definition of “State” or its instrumentalities under Article 12 of the Constitution of India.
An appeal was filed by a woman advocate challenging an order of a Single Judge, who had earlier dismissed her writ petition wherein the advocate had sought directions to the Bar Council of Delhi to initiate action against certain lawyers who allegedly trespassed into her chamber.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice D.K. Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia observed, “Bar Association is a body of private individual lawyers and in normal discharge of its functions, it does not perform any function which can be said to be a public function. It is a body registered under the Act, 1860; however, its affairs are governed by its Memorandum of Association, Constitution and Rules. 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.”
Advocate Shishir Pinaki appeared for the petitioner and Advocate Ashish Garg appeared for the respondent.
While upholding the Single Judge’s decision, the Division Bench reiterated that since Bar Associations do not perform public or statutory functions, no writ of mandamus can be issued against them under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Court clarified that the writ jurisdiction is limited to authorities performing public duties or falling within the ambit of Article 12, a criterion which Bar Associations do not satisfy.
The Bench further noted that the allegations made by the appellant regarding trespass could, if substantiated, give rise to criminal liability. However, it agreed with the Single Judge’s view that the proper remedy in such circumstances would be to initiate appropriate proceedings under criminal law, rather than invoking writ jurisdiction.
The Court also observed that one of the statutory duties entrusted to the Bar Council is to take disciplinary action against advocates in cases of professional misconduct. Accordingly, the appellant ought to have approached the Bar Council directly for redressal of her grievance instead of seeking a writ of mandamus from the High Court directing the Bar Council to act.
The Court clarified that the dismissal of the appeal would not preclude the appellant from pursuing other remedies available under law. It observed that she would be at liberty to initiate appropriate civil or criminal proceedings before a court of competent jurisdiction or to approach the relevant authority, including the Bar Council of Delhi, in accordance with law.
Cause Title: Sangita Rai v. New Delhi Bar Association & Ors., [2026:DHC:433-DB]
Appearance
Petitioner: Advocates Shishir Pinaki, Rakesh Singh, Shavnam Singh
Respondents: Advocates Ashish Garg & Govind Singh