Writ petitions challenging internal elections of Bar Associations are not maintainable as they do not involve public character or duties.

JUDGMENT :

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.

1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner as a party in person. Amongst the numerous reliefs sought for in this writ petition, the primary prayer is to quash the election notification dated 01.12.2025 issued in connection with the Kerala High Court Advocates’ Association Elections 2026. Reliefs are also sought for declaring the final list of voters both ordinary and life members published by the High Court Advocates’ Association, to be illegal and consequently, the results of the election held on 16.12.2025 is also assailed.

2. When the writ petition came up for admission, this Court entertained a doubt regarding its maintainability and hence the petitioner was requested to address the Court on the said issue. Though notice in the writ petition was not issued, as the first respondent had already been served and the Standing Counsel was present in Court, he was also permitted to put forth his arguments, if any, regarding the maintainability of the writ petition.

3. The petitioner, as party in person, as well as Sri. Harikumar G. the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent were heard. Before referring to the contentions advanced, it is necessary to narrate briefly the issue raised.

4. Petitioner is a member of the Kerala High Court Advocates’ Association, (for brevity ‘the Association') which is a body registered under the Travancore-Cochin Literary Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act, 1955. Being a practicing Advocate before this Court for over 25 years and a long standing member of the Association, petitioner declared her intention to contest the elections for the year 2026 through Ext.P4 letter. Subsequently, after a notice calling for an Annual General Body Meeting was issued, convening the meeting on 27.11.2025, petitioner issued a letter to the President of the Association pointing out numerous violations, including absence of publication of final voters list or a draft voters list as well as other issues. Petitioner alleges that a few minutes prior to the Annual General Body Meeting, a draft voters list was published and again on 29.11.2025 another draft voters list was published, she raised objections regarding the repeated and numerous violations in the electoral process. Without giving any response to the objections raised by the petitioner, the Association proceeded with the elections. Petitioner pleaded that a final list of candidates was published on 10.12.2025 and the election was held on 16.12.2025. The polling and counting was conducted inside the High Court Auditorium. Subsequently, though a representation was submitted by the petitioner to the Registrar General of the High Court, requesting for preservation of the CCTV footage, access logs and all related records, she has not received any reply. On 17.12.2025, the Returning Officer declared the results of the elections. It is thereafter that the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

5. Ms. Sangeetha Lakshmana, the petitioner submitted that the elections were held inside the High Court Auditorium using the infrastructure of the High Court after obtaining permission from the Registrar General of the High Court and hence the elections can be assailed through a writ petition. Relying upon the decisions in Jose Kuttiyani v. High Court Advocates' Association, 2004 (1) KLT 35, Kerala High Court Advocates' Association and Another v. State of Kerala and Others, 2017 (4) KLT 1193, Maharashtra Archery Association v. Rahul Mehra, 2019 KHC 6520 and Kerala High Court Advocates' Association v. District Registrar (General), 2020 (1) KHC 255 it was submitted that the Asso