Logo

Bar Association Election Dispute Not Maintainable Under Article 226: J&K High Court Dismisses Advocate’s Plea

Shivam Y.

J&K High Court dismissed an advocate’s challenge to Shopian Bar Association election rules, holding its internal eligibility dispute was not amenable to writ jurisdiction. - Advocate Abdul Basit Bhat v. District Bar Association Shopian & Ors.

Advertisement
Bar Association Election Dispute Not Maintainable Under Article 226: J&K High Court Dismisses Advocate’s Plea
Join Telegram

The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court at Srinagar has dismissed a writ petition challenging the amended election rules of the District Bar Association, Shopian, holding that an internal dispute concerning eligibility to contest association elections does not involve a public duty or public-law element.

Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal, in a judgment pronounced on August 29, 2026, held that the District Bar Association, Shopian is a voluntary association and its internal electoral affairs cannot ordinarily be examined under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Advertisement

Background Of The Case

Advocate Abdul Basit Bhat, a member of the District Bar Association, Shopian, approached the High Court challenging the Association’s amended Constitution of 2023 and the election notification issued on December 11, 2025.

Under the earlier rules, an advocate required 10 years of standing at the Bar to contest for President or Vice-President and seven years for Secretary. The amended rules increased these requirements to 15 years for President and Vice-President and 10 years for Secretary.

Bhat alleged that the amendment had not been properly approved. He claimed that no valid General Body Meeting was convened, no proper notice was issued and no lawful resolution was passed. The Association disputed these allegations, maintaining that notice was circulated through its official WhatsApp group and the amendment was approved by majority resolution.

High Court Examines Maintainability First

The Court said the first question was not whether the amendment was valid, but whether the writ petition itself could be entertained.

It noted that Article 226 permits High Courts to issue writs even against private bodies in appropriate cases, but only where the body is performing a public duty or the challenged action carries a sufficient public-law element.

The Court found that the District Bar Association was not created by statute, did not exercise statutory powers and was not shown to be under deep or pervasive government control. It therefore could not be treated as “State” or an instrumentality of the State under Article 12.

Election Rules Held To Be An Internal Matter

Justice Nargal drew a distinction between the professional importance of advocates and the legal character of the Association’s functions.

The Court observed:

Advertisement

“The impugned action thus relates exclusively to the internal governance of the Association and to the rights of its members in relation to its electoral process.”

It further held that merely because an association consists of advocates, every decision taken by it does not become a public function. The eligibility criteria for its office-bearers concerned only the Association’s members and did not create a public duty owed to society at large.

Disputed Facts Also Weighed Against Writ Remedy

The Court also noted that the case involved competing factual claims over whether notice was issued, whether a General Body Meeting was held and whether the amendment was approved.

According to the Court, resolving these questions would require examination of records and evidence, which could not ordinarily be undertaken in writ proceedings under Article 226.

The Court additionally noted the respondents’ contention that the amendment had remained in operation since 2023 and that the challenge was raised only after the 2025 election notification affected the petitioner’s eligibility. The Court said such conduct raised issues of acquiescence and approbation and reprobation.

Decision

Holding that the dispute concerned the internal affairs and electoral governance of a voluntary association and lacked the required public-law element, the High Court concluded that the District Bar Association, Shopian was not amenable to writ jurisdiction in the present matter.

The writ petition was accordingly dismissed as not maintainable, along with all connected applications, if any.

Case Details

Case Title: Advocate Abdul Basit Bhat v. District Bar Association Shopian & Ors.

Case Number: WP(C) No. 3245/2025; CM(M) No. 8716/2025

Judge: Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal

Decision Date: August 29, 2026

Advertisement

Take CourtBook Everywhere

Access your account on the go with our mobile app.

Get it on Google PlayDownload on the App Store
CourtBook Mobile App

Recommended Posts