Madras High Court | No Statutory Bar on Recognising Multiple Bar Associations | Tamil Nadu Bar Council Directed to Reconsider Plea of Nilgiris Women Lawyers Association
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Judicature at Madras Division Bench of Justice M.S. Ramesh and Justice V. Lakshminarayanan held that the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry had exceeded its authority in rejecting the application for recognition and registration of a women lawyers association. The Court quashed the resolution of rejection passed by the Bar Council and directed the authority to reconsider the association’s application strictly in accordance with the statutory requirements. The Court ordered that if the application complied with the stipulated prerequisites under law, recognition and registration must be granted forthwith. The Bench further mandated that this exercise be completed within fifteen days from receipt of the order.
The matter pertained to an application made by a legally constituted association of women advocates registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975. The association had submitted an application in Form No.1 under Section 13 of the Tamil Nadu Advocates Welfare Fund Act, 1987, seeking recognition and registration. The Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry considered the application and, after conducting an enquiry, rejected it by Resolution No.664/2023 dated 18.10.2023. This rejection was challenged before the High Court.
The petitioner association was represented by its president and had registered with the Registrar of Societies in Udhagamandalam. The purpose of the association was to safeguard the interests and welfare of practising women advocates in Nilgiris District. It was contended that despite allotment of separate rooms with toilet facilities for women advocates, the premises had been sealed arbitrarily, and it was only after intervention by the Supreme Court that the facilities were restored.
The petitioner submitted that the rejection of its application was arbitrary and that the inspection and enquiry conducted by the Bar Council was not in accordance with law. The Bar Council, represented through counsel, argued that while associations may seek recognition under Section 13 for welfare fund benefits, the enquiry revealed that most of the 34 practising women advocates in Nilgiris wished to remain members of the Nilgiris District Bar Association. It was submitted that due to internal disputes among women advocates, only a few members had opted to form a separate body, and even some office bearers intended to continue with the district bar association. The Bar Council resolved that only one association per court centre should be recognized, leading to the rejection of the petitioner’s application.
The third respondent, Nilgiris District Bar Association, contended that most women advocates practising in the combined court complex were members of their association. It was submitted that out of 80 women advocates, 56 were members of the Nilgiris District Bar Association and that the petitioner had only 13 members, as opposed to its claimed 41.
The statutory framework involved Section 13 of the Tamil Nadu Advocates Welfare Fund Act, 1987, which provides for recognition and registration of associations by the Bar Council. Sub-section (2) of Section 13 requires applications to be accompanied by the by-laws, office bearers’ details, and an up-to-date list of members with particulars including names, addresses, age, date of enrolment, and place of practice. Sub-section (3) authorizes the Bar Council to conduct an enquiry before granting recognition. The Tamil Nadu Advocates Welfare Fund Rules, 1989, particularly Rule 3(4), allow recognition of more than one bar association at a court centre for special reasons to be recorded in writing.
The petitioner enclosed all necessary documents with its application, including a demand draft of Rs.10,000 towards recognition fee, affidavits of members, list of members, by-laws, and certificate of registration. The Bar Council, however, carried out a detailed inspection involving comparison of membership strength between the petitioner and the existing bar association. It further considered the views of the existing Nilgiris District Bar Association before concluding against the petitioner.
The Court recorded that the Advocates Act, 1961 does not provide for recognition or registration of associations but relates mainly to enrolment and disciplinary proceedings. The Tamil Nadu Advocates Welfare Fund Act was enacted for constitution of a welfare fund and recognition of associations under Section 13. The Court extracted Section 13 and Rule 3 of the Rules in its order.
The Court observed, “The views of the members of the Bar Council that only one association should be recognized appears to be not only misconceived, but also contrary to the Welfare Fund Rules. Rule 3(4) specifically provides that the Bar Council may recognize, more than one Bar Association at a court centre, for special reasons to be recorded in writing. Neither the Welfare Fund Act, nor the Rules, places any prohibition for recognition of more than one Bar Association in the State of Tamil Nadu or the Union Territory of Puducherry.”
The Bench further observed, “It is common knowledge that more than one recognized Bar Association exists in several districts of Tamil Nadu. To quote a few such multiple recognitions in one court centre, would include the Madras High Court buildings, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, etc. Thus, the very basis of the resolution adopted by the members of the Bar Council to restrict recognition to only one association in a court centre, is neither founded on any intelligible differentia nor is in conformity with Rule 3(4) of the Welfare Fund Rules.”
The Court held that the Bar Council had exceeded its authority by conducting an extensive enquiry beyond the scope of Section 13(2). It stated, “The Act does not prescribe any minimum requirement of the number of advocates for the purpose of constituting an association of advocates under Section 13. While that being so, we fail to understand as to how the Bar Council could assume authority to enquire into the number of women advocates willing to form an association and reject their claim on the views of a few women advocates.”
Regarding the Bar Council’s reliance on the views of the existing Nilgiris District Bar Association, the Court observed, “The Bar Council has also exceeded its authority in taking the views of the third respondent Association during the course of its inspection and enquiry. Such a consultation is not provided for under the Welfare Fund Act or its Rules.”
Quoting an earlier decision, the Court recorded, “Strictly speaking, the Act does not contemplate the situation where the Bar Council is obliged to take into account the views of the other recognized Associations operating in that area which are already in existence, before considering the Application for the grant of recognition to a newly formed Association.”
The Court stated that the enquiry under Section 13(3) is limited to verification of the prerequisites listed in Section 13(2), namely the by-laws, office bearers’ details, membership list with particulars, and ordinary place of practice. It remarked, “The enquiry contemplated under Sub Section (3) cannot exceed to other irrelevant facts outside the scope of Sub Section (2).”
The Court concluded that in the present case, the Bar Council had engaged in unwarranted enquiries and exceeded its jurisdiction. It stated, “All other irrelevant facts discovered by the Bar Council, through its enquiry, was not only unwarranted, but also against the scope of Section 13 of the Welfare Fund Act.”
The Court quashed the impugned resolution. It directed the Bar Council to reconsider the application strictly within the framework of Section 13(2) of the Welfare Fund Act. The Bench ordered, “There shall be a direction to the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry / first respondent to reconsider the petitioner’s application, dated 24.03.2023, strictly confining its consideration to the verification of (i) whether the by laws of the association have been framed ? ; (ii) the names and addresses of the Office Bearers of the association; (iii) the up-to-date list of members of the association along with their particulars; and (iv) the ordinary place of practice of such members are contained therein.”
The Court further ordered, “If the application contains all these particulars as mandated under Section 13(2) of the Welfare Fund Act, the Bar Council shall forthwith grant recognition and registration to the petitioner’s Association. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioners: Mr. T. Murugamanickam, Senior Counsel for Mr. V. Rajesh
For the Respondents: Mr. C.K. Chandrasekar, Mr. Naveen Kumar Murthi for Mr. Srujith Krishna
Case Title: Women Lawyers Association of Nilgiris v. The Secretary, Bar Council of Tamil Nadu & Puducherry and others
Neutral Citation: 2025: MHC:2129
Case Number: W.P. No. 6176 of 2025
Bench: Justice M.S. Ramesh and Justice V. Lakshminarayanan
