Supreme Court Issues Notice On Challenge To Recognition Of 'Central Delhi Court Bar Association' As Bar Body Of Rouse Avenue

The genesis of the issue arose when the Rouse Avenue District Court was newly inaugurated on April 8, 2019, various advocates attempted to set up Bar Associations as the court-annexed Advocates Associations. In this race were: (1)the Central Delhi Court Bar Association, (2) the Rouse Avenue Bar Association, (3) the Delhi Rouse Avenue Court Bar Association, and (4)the Rouse Avenue District Court Bar Association.

The Bar Council of Delhi rejected the pleas of all three bar associations and accepted the Central Delhi Court Bar Association as the bar body stating that serious infractions have been noticed in the enrolment of the members of these bar associations. This was challenged before the Delhi High Court, which on April 8 upheld the decision of the Bar Council of Delhi refusing to grant them recognition.

Today at the outset, Justice Oka remarked: “We are wondering why the high court entertained the petition to decide which is the correct bar association.”

Justice Oka added that the members of the bar could have filed the plea before any other forum.

The advocate appearing for the petitioner (Rouse Avenue District Court Bar Association) told the court that he agreed the high court had no role to play. But added that the court at least issue notices so that the matter be decided by the Bar Council of Delhi, the respondent in this case.

The bench of Justices Sanjeev Sachdeva and Ravinder Dudeja of the Delhi High Court was specifically addressing the issue of whether the fundamental right guaranteed by Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution to form an Association also includes the right to be recognised by a State Bar Council or by the court to avail benefits that flow from such recognition, either as a Court annexed Bar Association or as a recognised Bar Association under the Advocates Welfare Fund Act, 2001.

On this, the high court said: “Insofar as the fundamental right of all citizens to form an Association as enshrined in Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution is concerned, there can be no dispute with the propositions that such Associations can be formed. In the present case, since all the Associations have been formed with the minimum mandatory number of desirous persons having subscribed to the Memorandum and Articles of Association and have been registered as Societies, this Court is not commenting on the validity of the formation of the said Associations. However, merely because an Association has been validly formed does not ipso facto entail recognition as a Court annexed Association or as a recognized Association under the Advocates Welfare Fund Act.”

Therefore, the court ordered: “Clearly, in view of the infraction noticed in mostly all the application forms for membership of the three associations i.e. the (1) Rouse Avenue Bar Association, (2) Delhi Rouse Avenue Court Bar Association and (3) Rouse Avenue District Court Bar Association, membership of said association cannot be accepted to be valid for the purposes of recognition as a Court annexed Bar Association or as a recognised Bar Association under the Advocates Welfare Fund Act.”

Although the plea regarding the validity of the membership of the Central Delhi Court Bar Association was also challenged, the court held: “On the other hand, with regard to the Association formed in terms of the resolution of the Bar Council of Delhi i.e. The Central Delhi Court Bar Association, the infraction alleged is that the payment was allegedly made by third parties for enrolling members. Though this is disputed on behalf of the Bar Council of Delhi, however, it is conceded that fresh members be enrolled in the said Association.”

Case details: Rouse Avenue District Court Bar Association v. Bar Council of Delhi & Ors, Diary No. 31378-2024.

Next date of hearing: September 23, 2024