Bar Associations are not State under Article 12

Source: Delhi High Court 

Why in News? 

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia in the case of Sangita Rai v. New Delhi Bar Association & Ors. (2025) dismissed an intra-court appeal on January 16, 2026, upholding that writ petitions seeking mandamus against Bar Associations are not maintainable as they are private entities not covered under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, 1950(COI).  

What was the Background of Sangita Rai v. New Delhi Bar Association & Ors. (2025) Case? 

• The appellant, Sangita Rai, is an Advocate enrolled with the Bar Council in 2000 with Enrolment No. D/53-E/2000. 
• She has been practicing regularly since 2000 and has represented Government agencies and autonomous bodies. 
• She has been on the Senior Panel of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited since 2011 and also on panels of Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited, Delhi Jal Board, and Municipal Corporation of Delhi. 
• In 2013, one Mr. Asgar Ali, who claimed to be the allottee of Chamber No. 279A at Patiala House Court Campus, approached the appellant and offered the chamber to her on monthly rent. 
• The appellant started functioning from the said chamber on a rental basis. 
• On a certain date, when the appellant returned from Tis Hazari Court, she found Mr. Asgar Ali along with ten other persons occupying her chamber after breaking open the lock. 
• These persons allegedly threatened, abused, and pressurized her to remove her belongings and vacate the chamber without any reason. 
• On February 4, 2023, office bearers of the New Delhi Bar Association, instead of helping her, threatened her to vacate the chamber immediately and put a lock of the Bar Association on the chamber. 
• This left the appellant helpless as her belongings, including case files of various government departments, became inaccessible, adversely affecting her profession. 
• The police were informed but did not take action against the alleged trespassers and refused to register a written complaint, advising her to approach the Chairperson of the Bar Association. 
• The appellant filed representations with the Bar Association and the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Patiala House Court, with various reminders, but received no response. 
• On March 6, 2023, while appearing before the Central Administrative Tribunal, she received a call informing her that her files and documents had been thrown out of the chamber onto the street. 
• The appellant filed W.P.(C) 3331/2023 seeking directions to remove the lock, hand over possession, and direct the Bar Association and/or Bar Council of Delhi to take action against advocates who allegedly committed criminal trespass. 
• The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on October 30, 2023, holding it not maintainable. 
• During proceedings, the District Judge In-charge enabled the appellant to remove her belongings, and keys were handed over to Mr. Asgar Ali with an undertaking not to sub-let the chamber. 
• On May 8, 2024, the appellant did not press Prayer A (seeking possession) and the appeal was confined to Prayer B (seeking action against advocates). 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• The Court held that the Bar Association is neither 'State' nor its instrumentality within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, nor does it perform any public functions. 
• Bar Associations are bodies of private individual lawyers registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, with the primary object of ensuring welfare of their members. 
• The affairs of Bar Associations are governed by their Memorandum of Association, Constitution, and Rules, not by statutory public duties. 
• Bar Associations are purely private entities and cannot be termed as 'State' or its instrumentality or agency or authority for any reason whatsoever. 
• In the absence of public functions being discharged by the Bar Association, no mandamus can be issued under Article 226 of the Constitution. 
• The Court observed that the acts complained of by the appellant may warrant criminal action, and the appellant could institute proceedings under criminal law to put the criminal machinery in motion. 
• Regarding the Bar Council of Delhi, which is a statutory body with the duty to regulate the profession and take disciplinary action for misconduct, the Court noted that the appellant should have approached the Bar Council directly instead of seeking a mandamus. 
• The Court emphasized that for seeking a writ of mandamus, a person must first approach the concerned authorities, and only upon their failure can a mandamus be sought for failure to discharge statutory duties. 
• The Court agreed with the Single Judge's decision that the writ petition was not maintainable. 
• The Court clarified that it remains open to the appellant to take recourse to appropriate civil or criminal action by invoking the jurisdiction of a competent court or by approaching the Bar Council of Delhi. 
• The Division Bench dismissed the intra-court appeal, finding no force in the appellant's arguments. 

What is Article 12 of the Constitution of India? 

About: 

• Article 12 lays down that unless the context otherwise requires, the State includes the Government and Parliament of India and the Government and the Legislature of each of the States and all local or other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India. 
• The definition of State is inclusive and provides that State includes the following: 
  • Government and Parliament of India i.e., the Executive and Legislature of the Union. 
  • Government and Legislature of each State i.e., the Executive and Legislature of the various States of India. 
  • All local or other authorities within the territory of India, or under the control of the Government of India. 

Local or Other Authorities Within the Territory of India: 

• The expression local authorities is defined in Section 3(31) of the General Clause Act, 1897 as local Authority shall mean a municipal committee, district board, body of commissioner or other authority legally entitled to or entrusted by the Government within the control or management of a municipal or local fund. 
• The expression local authorities usually refer to authorities such as municipalities, District Boards, Panchayats, mining settlement boards, etc. Anybody functioning under the state; owned; controlled and managed by the State and carrying out a public function is a local authority and comes within the definition of the state. 
• The term other authorities have nowhere been defined. Therefore, its interpretation has caused a good deal of difficulty, and judicial opinion has undergone changes over time. 
• The Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. R.C. Jain (1981) laid down the test for determining which bodies would be considered as a local authority under the definition of State enshrined under Article 12 of the COI. The Court held that if an authority: 
  • Has a separate legal existence 
  • Functions in a defined area 
  • Has the power to raise funds on its own 
  • Enjoys autonomy i.e., self-rule 
  • Is entrusted by statute with functions which are usually entrusted to municipalities, then such authorities would come under ‘local authorities’ and hence would be State under Article 12 of the COI. 

Whether a Body falls Under Article 12 or Not? 

• In R.D Shetty v. Airport Authority of India (1979) Justice P.N Bhagwati gave 5 Point test. This is a test to determine whether a body is an agency or instrumentality of the State and goes as follows – 
  • Financial resources of the State, where the State is the chief funding source i.e. the entire share capital is held by the government. 
  • Deep and pervasive control of the State. 
  • The functional character being Governmental in its essence, meaning thereby that its functions have public importance or are of a governmental character. 
  • A department of Government transferred to a corporation. 
  • Enjoys monopoly status which State conferred or is protected by it. 
• This was elucidated with the statement that the test is only illustrative and not conclusive in its nature and is to be approached with great care and caution. 

Case Laws: 

• University of Madras v. Shanta Bai (1950), the Madras High Court evolved the principle of ‘ejusdem generis’ i.e., of the like nature. It means that only those authorities are covered under the expression ‘other authorities’ which perform governmental or sovereign functions. Further, it cannot include persons, natural or juristic, for example, Unaided universities. 
• Ujjammabai v. the State of UP (1961), the Supreme Court rejected the above restrictive scope and held that the ‘ejusdem generis’ rule could not be resorted to in interpreting other authorities. The bodies named under Article 12 have no common genus running through them and they cannot be placed in one single category on any rational basis.