Madhya Pradesh High Court: In a writ petition challenging an order issued by the Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh (Recognition Committee) which denied separate recognition to the petitioner, High Court Advocates Bar Association, a division bench comprising of Vivek Agarwal* and Avanindra Kumar Singh, JJ., held that the State Bar Council’s decision to deny separate recognition to the petitioner Association was not arbitrary or illegal as no evidence of discrimination, illegality, irrationality, or procedural impropriety was found in the decision-making process of the State Bar Council. The Court held that the petitioner Association failed to demonstrate any violation of their rights under the Advocates Act, 1961 or the relevant state legislation.
Factual Matrix
In the instant matter, the petitioner, High Court Advocates Bar Association filed a writ petition challenging the order dated 05-02-2018 by the Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh (Recognition Committee) denying separate recognition to the petitioner. The Bar Council’s decision was made in Recognition Case No.01/2017, where the Madhya Pradesh High Court Bar Association, Jabalpur (respondent 2), was an objector and the Democratic Lawyers Forum, Jabalpur (respondent 4), was an intervener. The Recognition Committee expressed concerns over the situation where Senior Advocates were compelled to dissociate from the objector Association and directed the State Bar Council to address the matter. An amendment on 01-11-2023 highlighted that the recognition sought was for availing benefits from welfare schemes of the Bar Council of India and the State Bar Council. The Petitioner also challenged previous resolutions, including Resolution No.216/GB/07 and Resolution No.262/GB/05, which restricted multiple Bar Associations in certain areas.
Moot Point
-
Whether the denial of separate recognition to the High Court Advocates Bar Association, Jabalpur, by the Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh lawful?
-
Whether the petitioner has standing to challenge the denial of recognition?
Parties’ Contentions
The petitioner argued that the Bar Council’s rejection was against provisions of the Advocates Act, 1961, and the Adhivakta Kalyan Nidhi Adhiniyam, 1982. The petitioner cited a previous court order dated 22-02-2017, where the division bench of this Court noted Bar Council’s failure to act in accordance with the law. Additionally, the petitioner referenced rules such as the Certificate and Place of Practice (Verification) Rules, 2015 and asserted the illegality of the Bar Council’s decision. The petitioner cited Madras High Court Advocates Assn. High Court Building Chennai v. Secy., Bar Council of T.N., 2015 SCC OnLine Mad 3364 and Gobichettipalayam Assn. v. Bar Council of T.N., 2012 SCC Online Mad 2050, regarding recognition of Bar Associations, arguing that no statutory provision prohibited multiple associations in one area. The petitioner also emphasised on the importance of challenging the 05-02-2018 order, as it encompassed earlier rejections. Lastly, the petitioner argued for recognition based on their contributions and indirect acknowledgments by the judiciary.
The Madhya Pradesh State Bar Council-respondent questioned the delay in amending the petition and argued that the petitioner’s membership overlapped significantly with the High Court Bar Association, Jabalpur, minimising any deprivation of facilities. The respondent also challenged the locus standi of the petitioner, citing absence of a resolution from their general body. The respondent also argued that recognition wasn’t essential for the petitioner’s existence, highlighting the President’s participation in key committees.
Court’s Observation
The Court noted the petitioner’s extensive contributions to advocate welfare, including establishment of facilities and recognition by successive Chief Justices, but at the same time also observed the complexities regarding recognition and standing. The Court reviewed the provisions of the Advocates Act, 1961, and the Adhivakta Kalyan Nidhi Adhiniyam, 1982, which emphasised on the integration of the legal profession and the promotion of welfare schemes for advocates.
The Court emphasised that judicial review is not directed against a decision per se but against the decision-making process. The Court stated that to seek judicial review, it is necessary to show that the decision is illegal, irrational, or suffers from procedural impropriety. Since the petitioner failed to establish any of these grounds, the Court found no basis for interfering with the decision of the State Bar Council.
The Court referred to the principles of reasonableness, rationality, and proportionality in administrative law and emphasised that decisions of administrative bodies should not be devoid of the above-mentioned principles. The Court found no violation of these principles in the decision of the State Bar Council. Additionally, the Court noted that the petitioner Association had failed to demonstrate any ideological basis for its separation from the parent Association, which is a prerequisite for seeking recognition as per relevant legal precedents. The Court also highlighted that the welfare schemes for advocates, which are the main objective of the relevant legislation, were already being administered through recognized Bar Associations. Therefore, there was no justification for granting recognition to a parallel body.
“…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 that the State Bar Council’s decision to deny recognition to the petitioner Association was not arbitrary or illegal as the Court found no evidence of discrimination, illegality, irrationality, or procedural impropriety in the decision-making process of the State Bar Council.
Court’s Decision
The Court held that the decision of the State Bar Council to deny recognition to the petitioner Association was not arbitrary, irrational, or illegal. The Court dismissed the writ petition based on the lack of evidence of discrimination, illegality, irrationality, or procedural impropriety in the decision-making process of the State Bar Council and considering that the welfare schemes for advocates were already being effectively administered through recognised Bar Associations.
[High Court Advocates Bar Assn. v. Bar Council of India, 2024 SCC OnLine MP 2882, order dated 03-05-2024]
*Judgment by Justice Vivek Agarwal
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Shri Anil Khare, Shri Manoj Sharma, Shri Sanjay Agrawal, Senior Advocate, assisted by Shri K.N. Fakhruddin, Shri Rajmani Mishra, Shri Abhishek Gulatee and Shri Manoj Kumar Rajak, Counsel for the Petitioner
Shri Udyan Tiwari, Counsel for the Respondent No. 1
Shri Vipin Yadav, Counsel for the Respondent No. 2
Shri Sanjay Verma, Counsel for the Respondent No. 3
Shri Ravindra Gupta, Counsel for the Respondent No. 4
