No Statutory Prohibition Against Recognition Of More Than One Association By Bar Council: Madras High Court Directs Reconsideration Of Women Lawyers Association’s Application

The Petition before the Madras High Court was filed by the Women Lawyers Association of Nilgiris, challenging the Notification based upon which their application seeking recognition of the Association was rejected.

The Division Bench of Justice M.S.Ramesh and Justice V. Lakshminarayanan held, “The learned counsel for the third respondent Association made a faint attempt to discredit the facts put forth by the petitioner to establish their entitlement for recognition / registration. As recorded earlier, the third respondent Association has no role in the exercise to be adopted by the Bar Council while dealing with such an application. Further, there is no statutory prohibition against the recognition of more than one association by the Bar Council. Thus, the statistics of membership of either the third respondent Association or the petitioner Association is of no consequence for deciding the matter in hand.”

Senior Counsel T.Murugamanickam represented the Petitioner, while Advocate C.K.Chandrasekar represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The Women Lawyers Association of Nilgiris/ petitioner made an application under Section 13 of the Tamil Nadu Advocates Welfare Fund Act, 1987, to the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry (first respondent) seeking recognition and registration of their Association. The State Bar Council (Bar Council), after conducting an enquiry, rejected their application through a resolution which was under challenge in this Petition.

Arguments

It was the case of the Petitioner Association that it was registered under Section 10 of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975 and was assigned a Registration Number on the file of the Registrar of Societies, Udhagamandalam, Nilgiris District. It was thus a legally constituted body formed by the practising women advocates in the Nilgiris District, with an object to protect their interests, as well as to ensure their well-being.

Reasoning

On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the Bar Council appeared to have assumed itself as a fact-finding authority and had conducted a full-fledged personal inspection and enquiry on the application made by the petitioner Association for recognition and registration. As per the Bench, the views of the members of the Bar Council that only one association should be recognised appeared to be not only misconceived, but also contrary to the Welfare Fund Rules.

The Bench explained that Rule 3(4) specifically provides that the Bar Council may recognise more than one Bar Association at a court centre, for special reasons to be recorded in writing. “Neither the Welfare Fund Act, nor the Rules, places any prohibition for recognition of more than one Bar Association in the State of Tamil Nadu or the Union Territory of Puducherry”, it said. The Bench also stated, “Thus, 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 Bench also explained that the Act does not prescribe any minimum requirement of the number of advocates for the purpose of constituting an association of advocates under Section 13. Rule 2(b) and 2(c) define an 'Advocates' Association' and 'Bar Association' to mean an association of advocates recognised and registered by the Bar Council under Section 13. “The Act does not prescribe any minimum requirement of the number of advocates for the purpose of constituting an association of advocates under Section 13. Rule 2(b) and 2(c) define an 'Advocates' Association' and 'Bar Association' to mean an association of advocates recognized and registered by the Bar Council under Section 13. While that being so, we fail to understand as to how the Bar Council could assume authority to enquire into the number of women advocates willing to form an association and reject their claim on the views of a few women advocates to form an Association as a disentitlement to claim recognition/registration”, it added.

The Bench also stated, “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.

Thus, quashing the impugned Notification, the Bench directed the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry to reconsider the petitioner's application strictly confining its consideration to the verification of whether the by laws of the association have been framed and whether the names and addresses of the Office Bearers of the association; the up-to-date list of members of the association along with their particulars; and the ordinary place of practice of such members are contained therein.

“If the application contains all these particulars as mandated under Section 13(2) of the Welfare Fund Act, 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 Bench held while allowing the Petition.

Cause Title:Women Lawyers Association of Nilgiris v. The Secretary (Neutral Citation: 2025:MHC:2129)

Appearance

Petitioner: Senior Counsel T.Murugamanickam

Respondent: Advocates C.K.Chandrasekar, Naveen Kumar Murthi, Srujith Krishna, Kannan Kumar

Click here to read/download Order