The Delhi High Court has dismissed an intra-court appeal filed by an advocate seeking action against members of the New Delhi Bar Association over a dispute relating to a lawyers’ chamber at Patiala House Courts. The Division Bench upheld an earlier single judge order, holding that the writ petition itself was not maintainable under constitutional law.
The appeal was decided on January 16, 2026, by a Bench led by Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia.
Background of the Case
The appellant, an advocate enrolled since 2000, claimed she had been practicing regularly for over two decades and had represented several government bodies and public sector undertakings. According to her plea, she began using Chamber No. 279A at Patiala House Courts in 2013 on a rental arrangement with its allottee, another advocate.
Read also:- Environmental Lapse Exposed: MP High Court Flags Thousands of Units Operating Without Consent
She alleged that on returning one day from court, she found the chamber forcibly occupied, the lock broken, and her belongings threatened. The situation, she said, worsened when office bearers of the New Delhi Bar Association allegedly placed their own lock on the chamber, leaving her unable to access her files, including those related to government cases.
Aggrieved, she approached the High Court seeking restoration of possession and directions to the Bar Association and Bar Council of Delhi to take action against advocates allegedly involved in trespass.
The writ petition was dismissed by a single judge in October 2023. The court noted that the appellant was not the official allottee of the chamber and was only in “permissive possession.” Since she had no legal right over the chamber, the court held that she could not seek relief under writ jurisdiction.
Read also:- Bombay High Court Halts Ambernath Panel Formation Amid Political Tug-of-War Between BJP, Congress and Sena
The single judge also observed that allegations of criminal trespass could be addressed through remedies available under criminal law. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the court declined to issue directions for registration of criminal cases.
In appeal, the appellant argued that she had given up her claim for possession and was only pressing for action against the advocates allegedly involved in illegal acts. She contended that the single judge failed to consider this limited prayer and wrongly dismissed the entire petition.
Court’s Observations
The Division Bench disagreed. It examined the nature of the Bar Association and held that it is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, formed primarily for the welfare of its members.
“The Bar Association is a body of private individual lawyers,” the Bench observed, adding that it does not perform public functions in the sense required under Article 12 of the Constitution. Because of this, the court held that no writ of mandamus could be issued against it.
Read also:- After Sentence Suspension, Mandatory Court Appearance Not Required: Supreme Court
The judges further noted that while the Bar Council of Delhi is a statutory body with disciplinary powers, the appellant had neither approached it nor made it a party before the single judge.
“For seeking a writ of mandamus, the person must first approach the concerned authority,” the Bench said in substance, stressing that courts intervene only when statutory duties are not discharged.
Decision of the Court
Finding no error in the earlier ruling, the High Court dismissed the appeal. The Bench clarified that the appellant remains free to pursue appropriate civil or criminal remedies, including approaching the Bar Council of Delhi, as permitted under law.
No costs were imposed.
Case Title:- Sangita Rai v. New Delhi Bar Association & Others
Case Number:- LPA 368/2024
(Along with CM APPL. 27164/2024 & CM APPL. 49413/2025)
Date of Decision:- 16 January 2026
