Bar Associations Are Not 'State' Under Article 12, No Mandamus Lies Against Them Under Article 226: Delhi High Court

“Bar Association is a body of private individual lawyers… it is a purely private entity and cannot in any manner or for any reason, whatsoever, be termed to be ‘State’ or its instrumentality”, Delhi High Court

In a significant ruling on the scope and limitations of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Delhi High Court dismissed an intra-court appeal filed by an advocate seeking action against the New Delhi Bar Association and certain members for alleged trespass and illegal dispossession from an advocate chamber. The Court held that Bar Associations registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, do not discharge any public function and are not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226.

Delivering the judgment in Sangita Rai v. New Delhi Bar Association & Ors., a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia affirmed the order of the Single Judge dismissing the writ petition as not maintainable, reiterating the settled legal position that writs of mandamus can only be issued against authorities that perform public functions or are 'State' under Article 12.

“No Mandamus Can Be Issued to a Private Body to Compel It to Act in a Particular Manner”

The crux of the matter revolved around the appellant’s prayer for a writ of mandamus directing the Bar Association to restore possession of Chamber No. 279A at Patiala House Courts and to initiate action against certain advocates for alleged acts of trespass and intimidation. However, the Court held that the appellant had no enforceable legal right over the chamber as her possession was purely “permissive” and based on an informal arrangement with the original allottee.

Observing that “the appellant is not an allottee of the chamber in question”, the Court noted that she had been allowed to use the chamber on rent by one Mr. Asgar Ali, who is the lawful allottee. As such, no independent legal right accrued to her that could be enforced through a writ. “In absence of any right, the writ petition filed by the appellant was not maintainable,” the Court noted.

On the issue of seeking action against the alleged trespassers, the Court referred to Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. and Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P., holding that the appropriate remedy lay under criminal law and not through writ jurisdiction.

“Bar Council Was Not Even Impleaded; Mandamus Cannot Be Sought Without First Invoking Jurisdiction of Competent Statutory Authority”

The appeal also raised a secondary prayer for issuance of mandamus to the Bar Council of Delhi to initiate disciplinary action against the advocates involved. The Court dismissed this relief as well, noting that not only had the appellant failed to approach the Bar Council directly before invoking writ jurisdiction, but she also did not even implead the Bar Council as a respondent in the writ petition.

Referring to well-established principles of law, the Court clarified: “It is trite that for seeking writ of mandamus, the person approaching the Court has to first approach the authority concerned... and only in case of failure can writ jurisdiction be invoked.” Without establishing such failure on the part of the Bar Council, the Court refused to entertain the plea.

Further, the Court emphasized that disciplinary jurisdiction over advocates vests exclusively with the Bar Council under the Advocates Act, 1961, and cannot be bypassed by directly approaching the High Court.

No Public Law Element, No Writ Jurisdiction

A pivotal legal finding in the judgment was that the New Delhi Bar Association, being a private body registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, neither performs public duties nor qualifies as ‘State’ or its instrumentality under Article 12. The Court categorically ruled:

“Bar Association is a body of private individual lawyers and in normal discharge of its functions, it does not perform any function which can be said to be a public function… It is in fact, a purely private entity and cannot in any manner or for any reason, whatsoever, be termed to be ‘State’ or its instrumentality.”

Accordingly, no writ of mandamus could be issued to it under Article 226 of the Constitution.

While noting that the appellant later chose not to press the prayer for restoration of possession, the Court found that even the remaining prayer lacked merit due to the absence of any enforceable public duty or legal obligation on the part of the respondents.

Appellant at Liberty to Avail Civil or Criminal Remedies

Concluding the matter, the Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the view of the Single Judge, while clarifying that the appellant remains at liberty to pursue other remedies under law:

“It will always be open to the appellant to take recourse to appropriate civil or criminal action, as may be permissible under law by invoking the appropriate jurisdiction of a Court of competent jurisdiction or by approaching the authority concerned, including the Bar Council of Delhi.”

Date of Decision: January 16, 2026