SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 24403

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bechu Kurian Thomas, J
C. B Rajeev – Appellant
Versus
The Bar Council of India – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 12005 OF 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sri.M.R.Sasith
For the Respondents: Sri.Rajit, Smt.M.U.Vijayalakshmi

State bar councils lack authority over the election processes of bar associations.

Headnote:This judgment involves the petitioners' challenge to the election of the Kunnamkulam Bar Association, seeking its declaration as void and calling for fresh elections. The court held that no legal provision permits state bar councils to control bar associations, thus deeming the petition non-maintainable. The petition was dismissed with the option to seek appropriate redress elsewhere.

Table of Content
1. challenge to bar association election. (Para 1 , 2)
2. non-maintainability of petition. (Para 3 , 4)
3. judicial authority limits. (Para 5 , 6)

JUDGMENT

Petitioners seek for a direction to declare an election conducted to Kunnamkulam Bar Association as null and void apart from a direction to conduct a new election to elect the office bearers of the said Bar Association within a time limit. Petitioners have also sought for a direction to consider the representation submitted by them before the Bar Council of Kerala.

2. I have heard Sri.M.R.Sasith, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri.Rajit, the learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent as well as Smt.M.U.Vijayalakshmi, the learned Standing Counsel for respondents 2 and 3.

3. A reading of the pleadings in the writ petition reveals that the dispute raised is with respect to an election conducted to one of the Bar Associations in Kerala – the Kunnamkulam Bar Association. The pleadings and the reliefs claimed reveal that the petitioners require the Bar Council of Kerala to intervene and either consider their representation or for this Court to declare the election to the said Bar Association as null and void.

4. Having heard the respective counsel, this Court is of the view that the reliefs as claimed by the petitioner is not maintainable before this Court. No provision of law has been brought to my notice conferring power on the Bar Council of a State over Bar Associations.

5. Though an individual Advocate may be subject to the authority of the Bar Council of a State, the Bar Associations are not under the control or authority of the Bar Council. If in case any Advocate is aggrieved by the conduct of an election to the Bar Association, the remedy is elsewhere. The remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be resorted to in such circumstances.

6. I am fortified in the above view by the decision in Bar Association, Lahar Dist.Bhind v. State Bar Council of M.P. and Another [2018(4) M.P.L.J 387] wherein it has been observed that the State Bar Council has no power, authority or jurisdiction to interfere with election process or election of Bar Association.

Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. However, the remedy of the petitioners, if any to initiate appropriate proceedings, in accordance with law, before the appropriate forum shall stand reserved.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top