The Madras High Court allowed the writ petition, quashing the Bar Council’s rejection of recognition for the Women Lawyers Association of Nilgiris, and directed that its application be reconsidered strictly as per the Tamil Nadu Advocates Welfare Fund Act, 1987.
The Women Lawyers Association of Nilgiris, a registered society, had filed for recognition under Section 13 of the Tamil Nadu Advocates Welfare Fund Act, 1987 so its members could access statutory welfare benefits. The Bar Council rejected the application through its Resolution dated 18.10.2023, invoking its own policy of recognizing only one bar association per court centre and citing alleged disputes and insufficient membership. The petitioner challenged the rejection, seeking a writ to quash the decision and to direct the Bar Council to grant recognition.
The Petitioner Association, formally constituted and registered in 2023, was formed by practicing women advocates in Nilgiris District for mutual support and welfare. The group applied for recognition, submitting all required documents, affidavits, membership lists, by-laws, and proof of registration.
The Respondent Bar Council conducted an extensive inspection, canvassed opinions of other bar association members, and cited membership overlap and internal disputes as grounds for rejection. They also referenced an internal resolution preferring a “one association per court centre” rule, which is not based in statute or the applicable Welfare Fund Rules.
The Petitioners assailed the rejection as arbitrary, exceeding the statutory mandate, and in ignorance of an express provision in the rules allowing for more than one association. The Respondents maintained their inspecting to assert that only one association should be recognized to avoid fragmentation, and noted that most women lawyers preferred membership with the existing association.
The Bench comprising Justice M.S. Ramesh and Justice V. Lakshminarayanan observed that the Advocates Act, 1961 governs only enrolment/discipline, not registration of lawyer associations. The Court held that the Bar Council’s enquiry should be limited to verifying if the application fulfils statutory requirements (by-laws, members’ particulars, offices, and practice addresses), not the number of members or other associations’ input.
The Court found that the Bar Council exceeded its statutory authority as per Section 13 of the Welfare Fund Act. Consulting the rival association for “views” is not authorised by law, and membership strength or internal lawyer disputes are legally irrelevant.
The High Court quashed the Bar Council’s Resolution dated 18.10.2023 rejecting the Women Lawyers Association of Nilgiris’s application. It directed the Bar Council to reconsider the application strictly on statutory grounds. If these are satisfied, recognition and registration must be granted forthwith. The entire process was directed to be completed within 15 days from receipt of the order.
Case relied on:
Madras High Court Advocates’ Association vs. The Secretary of the Bar Council of Tamilnadu, [2015 (4) CTC 524]
Appearances:
For Petitioner: Mr. T. Murugamanickam, Senior Counsel for Mr. V. Rajesh
For Respondents: Mr. C. K. Chandrasekar for R1; Mr. Kannan Kumar for R2; Mr. Naveen Kumar Murthi for Mr. Srujith Krishna for R3
