The Delhi High Court has drawn a firm constitutional boundary around bar associations, holding that such bodies are private entities and do not qualify as “State” or its instrumentalities under Article 12 of the Constitution.
A Division Bench clarified that because bar associations function as private collectives formed to safeguard the interests of their own members, the High Court cannot compel them through a writ of mandamus under Article 226.
In clear terms, the Court noted that the everyday roles performed by these associations—ranging from managing internal affairs to protecting professional interests—remain firmly within the private domain. On that basis, the Bench ruled out any possibility of branding them as a State authority for constitutional enforcement.
These observations came while dismissing an appeal arising from a dispute over the use of a chamber at the Patiala House Courts complex. The appellant had challenged the earlier refusal of the High Court to intervene, arguing that she had been unlawfully removed from a chamber she had occupied on rent for several years.
The Division Bench agreed with the earlier view that the New Delhi Bar Association could not be subjected to writ jurisdiction. It added that grievances of this nature should be pursued before the appropriate regulatory body rather than through constitutional remedies.
The Court further observed that if any unlawful acts had been committed during the alleged forcible entry into the chamber, other legal remedies were available to address such conduct.
With these findings, the Bench affirmed the earlier order and declined to interfere, bringing the appeal to a close.
