Madhya Pradesh HC Dismisses High Court Advocates Bar Association's Plea Against State Bar Council's Refusal To Grant Separate Recognition
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has dismissed a petition filed by the High Court Advocates Bar Association against the refusal of the State Bar Council to recognize it as a separate bar association.The Court ruled that the purpose of the Adhivakta Kalyan Nidhi Adhiniyam Act of 1982, which administers welfare schemes for advocates, is being fulfilled through existing recognized bar...
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has dismissed a petition filed by the High Court Advocates Bar Association against the refusal of the State Bar Council to recognize it as a separate bar association.
The Court ruled that the purpose of the Adhivakta Kalyan Nidhi Adhiniyam Act of 1982, which administers welfare schemes for advocates, is being fulfilled through existing recognized bar associations.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Vivek Agarwal and Justice Avanindra Kumar Singh observed, “it is evident that purpose of the (Adhivakta Kalyan Nidhi Adhiniyam) Act of 1982, being to administer welfare schemes for the social security and welfare of advocates whichcan be administered only through a Bar Association recognized by the Bar Council, then it is evident that by virtue of the fact that all the 330 odd members of the petitioner-Association being also members of the High Court Bar Association or the District Court Bar Association, which are duly recognized by the Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh under Section 16, are being administered the welfare schemes which is the aim and object of Act of 1982.”
“Therefore, there appears to be no justification for registration of a parallel body when the aim and object of Act of 1982 and the aim and object of the Advocates Act 1961 are being already fulfilled. Thus, prima facie there is no justification for recognizing a parallel body without there being any averment that their members are being not administered the socially beneficial provisions of either the Advocates Act of 1961 or the Act of 1982,” the bench added,
The writ petition was filed by the High Court Advocates Bar Association, through its Secretary, contesting an order from the Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh (Recognition Committee). This order pertained to a Recognition Case involving the High Court Advocates Bar Association, Jabalpur (the applicant), the Madhya Pradesh High Court Bar Association, Jabalpur (respondent No.2, objector), and the Democratic Lawyers Forum, Jabalpur (intervener), all represented by their respective counsels. The order in question denied separate recognition to the High Court Advocates Bar Association, Jabalpur.
In rejecting the High Court Advocates Bar Association's application for recognition, the Recognition Committee expressed concern over the circumstances leading some Senior Advocates to dissociate themselves from the Objector Association and seek separate facilities. Additionally, the Committee directed the State Bar Council to address acts of intolerance and formulate appropriate rules to address such situations.
By an amendment made on 01.11.2023 in compliance with the Court's order dated 01.03.2016, filed by the petitioner High Court Advocates Bar Association, it was added that before the State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, the object seeking recognition is for the purposes of availing benefits of the welfare schemes launched by the Bar Council of India and the State Bar Council.
Advocate Vipin Yadav, representing the Madhya Pradesh State Bar Council, contended that the petitioner's association comprised 330 members, whereas respondent No.3, the High Court Bar Association, boasted a membership of 1600 individuals. Yadav pointed out that all 330 members of the petitioner's association were already members of either the respondent No.3 association or the District Court Bar Association. Hence, he argued, there would be no deprivation of the facilities available to members of a registered Bar Association.
Furthermore, Yadav questioned the petitioner's locus standi, asserting that there was no resolution from the general body of the petitioner's association authorizing the filing of the petition. He argued that since all 330 members were already receiving facilities through their membership in either the High Court Bar Association or the District Court Bar Association, the petition should be dismissed.
In response, delving into the historical context and legislative intent behind the Advocates' Act of 1961, the court noted, "going through the record, statements of objects and reasons for enacting the Advocates' Act 1961, is to implement the recommendations of the All India Bar Committees made in 1953, after taking into account the recommendations of the Law Commission on the subject of Reform of Judicial Administration in so far as the recommendations relate to the Bar and the legal education."
The court emphasized that the Act, particularly Amendment Act 70 of 1993, was geared towards promoting the growth of Bar Associations to implement welfare schemes for advocates. It highlighted that the primary purpose of a Bar Association is to advocate for the implementation of welfare schemes for its members, as outlined in Section 2(m) of the Advocates Act of 1961, which defines "State Bar council" as a Bar Council constituted under Section 3.
The Court opined, “if petitioners Association claim themselves to be a break away from a recognized association, then they are required to plead and prove that what was the ideological basis for drifting away from the parent Association. When examined in this back drop, then in absence of any pleadings to show that there was any ideological basis for formation of another Association i.e. the petitioner Association, law laid down in case of Madras High Court Advocates Association too will not have any application.”
“Thus, it is evident that there being no illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety in the decision of the State Bar Council, it does not call for interference,” the Court added.
The Court stated that there was no scope for indulgence in the matter of decision taken by the State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, specially when petitioners failed to make out a case of discrimination illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety.
Thus, when it is not contended that by denying the recognition, the act of the State Bar Council has caused any affect to the fundamental freedom of petitioner Association, it cannot be said that petitioners have any right to seek separate recognition without there being any object for the same, specially when it has failed to make out a case that its members are being denied benefits of the welfare scheme, which they are even otherwise getting by virtue of their dual membership, High Court Bar Association or district Bar Association which are recognized Bar Associations,” the Court held while dismissing the petition.
Case Title: High Court Advocates Bar Association vs Bar Council of India and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 102