J&K HC Rejects Writ In Bar Association Poll Dispute

(MENAFN- Kashmir Observer) Srinagar- The High Court of J&K and Ladakh has held that a Bar Association is a voluntary body, and its internal election disputes or amendment of eligibility criteria for office-bearers cannot be challenged through a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

A bench of Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal dismissed a petition filed by an advocate who had challenged the 2023 amendment enhancing the eligibility criteria for contesting the posts of President, Vice-President and Secretary of the Bar Association Shopian.

ADVERTISEMENT

Under the amended provisions, the required standing at the Bar was increased from 10 to 15 years for President and Vice-President and from seven to 10 years for Secretary.

The petitioner had also challenged the election notification issued on December 11, 2025, contending that the amendment had been introduced without following due procedure.

ADVERTISEMENT

The petitioner argued that no valid General Body Meeting was held, no proper notice was circulated and no resolution approving the amendment had been passed. The advocate also alleged that the amendment was arbitrary and intended to exclude younger advocates from contesting elections.

The respondents opposed the petition, maintaining that the amendment had been approved by the General Body after due notice and majority vote. They also argued that the Association was a voluntary body governed by its own Constitution and bye-laws and was neither“State” under Article 12 nor a body performing a public function under Article 226.

The Court agreed with the respondents' preliminary objection. It held that the District Bar Association Shopian neither derives its existence from any statute nor exercises statutory powers or governmental functions. The Court observed that merely because its members are advocates and the legal profession has an important role in the administration of justice, every activity of the Association cannot be treated as a public function.

Read Also RBA Certificate Fraud: J&K High Court Refuses to Quash FIR High Court Quashes JK Bank Officer's Dismissal

The Court held that the dispute over eligibility for holding office in the Association concerned“internal governance” and the electoral rights of its members, without any public-law element. It therefore could not be examined through writ jurisdiction.

The Court also noted that the case involved disputed questions of fact, including whether notice for the General Body Meeting was issued, whether the meeting was held and whether the amendment was validly approved. Such issues, it said, require examination of evidence and are more appropriately adjudicated by a competent civil court.

It further took note of the delay in challenging the 2023 amendment, observing that the amended Constitution had remained operative for a considerable period and subsequent elections had allegedly been conducted under it. The Court held that the petitioner's conduct raised issues of acquiescence and approbate-and-reprobate, particularly as the challenge was made after the issuance of the election notification when the amended eligibility criteria affected his candidature.

Referring to judgments of the Supreme Court and various High Courts, including the recent decision concerning the New Delhi Bar Association, the Court reiterated that a Bar Association does not become amenable to writ jurisdiction merely because it consists of advocates. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the writ petition as not maintainable.

MENAFN31082026000215011059ID1111603667