Writ petitions challenging internal election disputes in associations are not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution.

JUDGMENT :

Sathish Ninan, J.

Is a writ petition maintainable against the Kerala High Court Advocates' Association (herein after referred to as “the Association”), challenging the election held to its Executive Committee? The learned Single Judge held in the negative. The petitioner is in appeal.

2. The Association is a society registered under the Travancore-Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act , 1955. Election to the Executive Committee of the Association for the year 2026 was held on 16.12.2025. The petitioner is a member of the Association. She had intended to contest the election in question. The writ petition was filed alleging that the election was held violating the prescribed procedures. The violations relate to publication of voters' list, both draft and final, failure to conduct election by secret ballot, etc. The learned Single Judge held that the Association is not amenable to writ jurisdiction, and accordingly dismissed the writ petition in limine.

3. The petitioner appeared as party-in-person and challenged the finding of the learned Single Judge. Placing reliance upon few interlocutory orders of the Hon'ble Apex Court and judgments of various High Courts, including this Court, the petitioner contended that the writ petition against the Association is maintainable and that the petition ought to have been entertained and considered on merits. The precedents relied on by the petitioner shall be adverted to by us in due course.

4. To hold against the maintainability of the writ petition, the learned Single Judge relied on the judgments in Secretary Alipore Bar Association v. Subir Sengupta and Ors. [2024 SCC OnLine Cal 3597], Vipin Kumar Sharma v. The Returning Officer NDBA Elections [2026 SCC OnLine Del 311], Arghya Kumar Nath v. Prof.D.S. Rawat and Ors. [2014 SCC OnLine Del 4622] and Rajghor Ranjhan Jayantilal v. Election Scrutiny Committee of Bombay Bar Association and Anr. [2024 (4) Mah LJ 288]. Firstly, we proceed to refer to the said judgments.

5. Secretary Alipore Bar Association (supra) case related to the election to the Alipore Bar Association. Therein, the Calcutta High Court considered the question of maintainability, in extenso. After referring to the various judgments of the Apex Court, it was held thus;

“....... we feel constrained to hold here that the Alipore Bar Association being not a state “other authority” or “agency or instrumentality” of the state within the meaning of Article 12 and “authority or person” discharging public function within the meaning of Article 226 , writ against Alipore Bar Association that too in the matter of election to the Bar Association is not maintainable. In other words Alipore Bar Association is not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court.”

It was held that the writ petition challenging the election to the Association is not maintainable.

6. Vipin Kumar Sharma (supra) was again a case where election to a Bar Association was under challenge in a writ petition under Article 226 . The Delhi High Court held thus;

“With respect to the disputes regarding the conduct of elections, it is a settled position of law that such disputes ought to be raised and adjudicated in an Election Petition/civil suit, and not by filing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. There is no gainsaying that all the alleged discrepancies as pointed out in the writ petition, are disputed questions of facts, and their veracity can only be tested in duly constituted proceedings, in accordance with law, upon leading of evidence.”

The Court though held that certain functions per