Court holds Bar Associations as private bodies not performing public functions; directs petitioner to seek remedy through civil courts or Registrar of Societies
In a significant judgment dated September 9, 2026, the Allahabad High Court (Division Bench, Lucknow) delivered a crucial verdict in the writ petition filed by Lal Bihari Verma against the State of Uttar Pradesh and others, including the Central Bar Association, Tehsil Gola Gokaran Nath, District Lakhimpur Kheri. The petitioner, a practicing advocate and former president of the Bar Association, challenged the order debarring him from the Bar Association's membership for one year.
The petitioner sought to quash the impugned order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, asserting that the debarment was arbitrary, retaliatory, and damaging to his reputation. However, the Court scrutinized the maintainability of the writ petition itself, focusing on whether a writ under Article 226 can be entertained against a Bar Association in matters relating to its internal membership disputes.
The Court reiterated the well-established "function test" for writ jurisdiction, emphasizing that the amenability of any body-public or private-to writ jurisdiction depends on whether it performs a public function or discharges a public duty. Referring to several landmark Supreme Court judgments such as Federal Bank Ltd. v. Sagar Thomas (2003), G. Bassi Reddy v. International Crops Research Institute (2003), and the recent S. Shobha v. Muthoot Finance Ltd. (2025), the Court underscored that private bodies, including Bar Associations registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, do not perform public functions in the context of internal membership regulation.
The Court further relied on the Delhi High Court's decision in Sangita Rai v. New Delhi Bar Association (2026), upheld by the Supreme Court, which held that Bar Associations are private entities whose primary object is the welfare of their members and do not qualify as `State' or its instrumentality under Article 12 of the Constitution. Thus, writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is not available for adjudicating disputes relating to membership, suspension, or debarment within such associations.
The Allahabad High Court emphasized that the relationship between a voluntary Bar Association and its members is contractual and regulated by the Association's own rules and bye-laws. Therefore, any grievances related to membership issues should be pursued before civil courts, the Registrar of Societies, or internal dispute resolution mechanisms provided under the bye-laws of the Bar Association.
Notably, the Court observed that the mere impleading of State and Bar Council authorities as respondents does not grant writ jurisdiction when the core dispute is exclusively against the Bar Association's internal decision. The Court dismissed the writ petition as not maintainable but granted liberty to the petitioner to seek alternative remedies. It directed that if an application is filed before the competent authority within one week, it should be decided preferably within four weeks after affording a fair hearing.
This judgment reaffirms the principle that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is not a substitute for civil remedies in private disputes and clarifies the limited scope of judicial intervention in the internal affairs of Bar Associations. The ruling is expected to guide future litigants seeking judicial intervention in membership disputes of private professional bodies.
Bottom Line:
Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable against a Bar Association for membership disputes as such disputes are private in nature and do not involve public law elements.
Statutory provision(s):
Article 226, Constitution of India; Societies Registration Act, 1860 (Sections 21 to 33 as amended in Uttar Pradesh)
Lal Bihari Verma v. State of U.P., (All)(DB)(Lucknow) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2976692
