The Bar Council cannot deny recognition to an advocates' association based solely on the opinion of existing members, as the Welfare Fund Act allows multiple associations and necessitates adherence to application requirements.

ORDER

M.S.RAMESH, J.

The Women Lawyers Association of Nilgiris / the petitioner herein made an application under Section 13 of the Tamil Nadu Advocates Welfare Fund Act, 1987 to the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry / the first respondent herein, seeking for recognition and registration of their Association, through an application in Form No.1 dated 24.03.2023. The State Bar Council (hereinafter referred to 'Bar Council'), after conducting an enquiry, had rejected their application, through a resolution No.664/2023 dated 18.10.2023, which is put under challenge in this writ petition.

2. Mr.T.Murugamanickam, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner Association was registered under Section 10 of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975 and was assigned with a Registration No.12/2023 on the file of the Registrar of Societies, Udhagamandalam, Nilgiris District. It is thus a legally constituted body formed by the practising women advocates in the Nilgiris District, with an object to protect their interests, as well as to ensure their well being. According to him, though the Madras High Court had allotted a separate room with toilet facilities for the women advocates, it was arbitrarily sealed, and only after the petitioner Association had approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court, challenging the said act, the room and the toilets were ordered to be de-sealed. Touching upon the impugned order of rejection, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that the Bar Council had arbitrarily rejected their application seeking for recognition and registration, and the prior inspection and enquiry conducted by it, was not in accordance with law.

3. Mr.C.K.Chandrasekar, learned counsel appearing for the Bar Council / first respondent submitted that an association of advocates may apply for recognition and registration to the Bar Council, for availing the benefits of the welfare fund for its members under Section 13 of the Tamil Nadu Advocates Welfare Fund Act, 1987 and on receipt of such an application, the Bar Council is empowered to conduct an enquiry under Sub Section 3 of the Act for consideration of the application. According to him, in the instant case, an inspection was conducted by the Bar Council pursuant to their application and found that among the total strength of 34 women advocates, practising in the Nilgiris District, majority of the members expressed that they wanted to continue their membership with the Nilgiris District Bar Association / third respondent and owing to some internal dispute among the women advocates, a very few members alone have decided to start a separate association. He further submitted that during the course of the enquiry, it was found that even some of the Office Bearers expressed their intention to continue their membership with the third respondent Association, which establishes the existence of personal enmity among the women advocates. The learned counsel also submitted that the Bar Council has resolved to recognize only one association in one court centre and, since the petitioner Association is the second association, it was felt non-essential to grant recognition and therefore, the Bar Council had resolved to reject the petitioner's application.

4. Mr.Naveen Kumar Murthi, learned counsel appearing for the third respondent Association would submit that though room and toilets allotted to the petitioner Association were originally sealed, they were subsequently de- sealed and the women advocates now have access to them. According to him, among the 80 women advocates practising in the combined District Court Complex, 56 are members of their Nilgiris District Bar Association and not 41 as claimed by the petitioner. He would further state that the petitioner Association has only 13 members, as against its claim of 41 advocates as members. With such submissions, he endorsed the resolution of the Bar Council's rejection.

5. We have given our careful consideration to the