Article 226 writs do not lie against Bar Associations for internal membership disputes.

The petitioner, a practising Advocate enrolled with the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh, was an erstwhile President of the Central Bar Association, Tehsil Gola Gokaran Nath, District Lakhimpur Kheri, and had been appointed Chief Election Officer for the Association’s elections held on 20 January 2026.

After the election, he allegedly lodged complaints against the newly elected office-bearers concerning illegal activities.

The Central Bar Association subsequently issued a press release dated 12 June 2026 debarring him from its membership for one year.

The petitioner challenged that action under Article 226 of the Constitution, alleging that it was retaliatory, arbitrary, and injurious to his reputation.

Although the State of Uttar Pradesh, the Bar Council of India, and the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh were impleaded as respondents, the substantive grievance was directed exclusively against the Bar Association.

Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable against a district-level Bar Association in respect of an internal dispute concerning the suspension or debarment of one of its members.

Whether the impleadment of the State Government, the Bar Council of India, and the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh could confer maintainability where no independent relief or inaction was alleged against them.

Whether the petitioner’s membership and debarment dispute should instead be pursued before a civil court, the Registrar of Societies, or an authority designated under the Association’s bye-laws.

The Court applied the “function test” under Article 226, under which a private body may be amenable to writ jurisdiction only where the impugned action involves the discharge of a public duty or public function, and not merely because the body is registered under or regulated by statute.

Relying on Federal Bank Ltd. v. Sagar Thomas, (2003) 10 SCC 733, and G. Bassi Reddy v. International Crops Research Institute, (2003) 4 SCC 225, the Court held that private or contractual disputes ordinarily do not attract writ jurisdiction unless a statutory or public-law obligation is involved.

It further relied on S. Shobha v. Muthoot Finance Ltd., (2025) 11 SCC 335, for the proposition that obligations confined to an entity’s members, without impact on the public at large, are generally outside Article 226.

The Court also considered Sangita Rai v. New Delhi Bar Association, 2026 SCC OnLine Del 243, upheld by the Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) No. 18940 of 2026, which treated a Bar Association as a private body ordinarily performing no public function.

The exceptions recognised in Zee Telefilms v. Union of India, (2005) 4 SCC 649, and BCCI v. Cricket Association of Bihar, (2015) 3 SCC 251, apply where a private body exercises a public or regulatory monopoly over an entire field, not to internal membership disputes of a district-level Bar Association.

The Court held that the Central Bar Association was a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, and that the impugned action concerned the petitioner’s membership and internal relationship with the Association.

Such matters were governed by the Association’s bye-laws and were contractual or regulatory in character, rather than exercises of a public function.

The Court distinguished cases involving private bodies performing functions of substantial public character, observing that the Association’s activities were confined to the welfare and internal regulation of its members.

The mere fact that the legal profession possesses a public character did not transform an inter se membership dispute into a public-law controversy.

The impleadment of governmental and regulatory authorities was also insufficient because no independent relief or inaction was attributed to them.

The petition was accordingly dismissed as not maintainable.

The Court granted liberty to the petitioner to pursue an appropriate civil suit, approach the Registrar of Societies, or invoke any remedy available under the Association’s bye-laws.

If such an application was filed within one week, the concerned authority was directed to decide it, after hearing the petitioner and all stakeholders, preferably within four weeks of its filing.