The High Court of J&K and Ladakh has rejected a plea challenging the amended Constitution of the District Bar Association Shopian.
Dismissing an advocate’s plea challenging the 2023 amendment enhancing the eligibility criteria for contesting the posts of President, Vice-President and Secretary of the Association, a bench of Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal held that disputes concerning the lawyers’ body’s internal affairs and elections are not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Under the amended provisions, the required standing at the Bar was increased from 10 to 15 years for President and Vice-President and from seven to 10 years for Secretary.
The petitioner had called into question the election notification issued on December 11, 2025, contending that the amendment had been introduced without following due procedure.
He further contended that no valid General Body Meeting was held, no proper notice was circulated and no resolution approving the amendment had been passed. The amendment, he argued, was arbitrary and intended to exclude younger advocates from contesting elections.
Opposing the plea, the respondents said that the amendment had been approved by the General Body after due notice and a majority vote. The Association, they said, was a voluntary body governed by its own Constitution and bye-laws and was neither “State” under Article 12 nor a body performing a public function under Article 226.
Agreeing with the respondents’ preliminary objection, the court held that the District Bar Association Shopian neither derives its existence from any statute nor exercises statutory powers or governmental functions. It observed that merely because its members are advocates and the legal profession has an important role in the administration of justice, every activity of the Association cannot be treated as a public function.
The Court underscored that the dispute over eligibility for holding office in the Association concerned internal governance and the electoral rights of its members, without any public-law element. It therefore could not be examined through writ jurisdiction.
The Court noted that the case involved disputed questions of fact, including whether notice for the General Body Meeting was issued, whether the meeting was held and whether the amendment was validly approved. Such issues require examination of evidence and are more appropriately adjudicated by a competent civil court, it said.
Moreover, the Court took note of the delay in challenging the 2023 amendment. “The amended Constitution had remained operative for a considerable period and subsequent elections had allegedly been conducted under it.”
The Court observed that the petitioner’s conduct raised issues of acquiescence and approbation and reprobation, particularly as the challenge was made after the issuance of the election notification when the amended eligibility criteria affected his candidature.
The Court, in keeping with the Supreme Court and various High Court decisions, including a recent one concerning the New Delhi Bar Association, reiterated that a Bar Association does not become amenable to writ jurisdiction merely because it consists of advocates. The Court accordingly dismissed the petition as “not maintainable”.
