Plea Before State Bar Council Challenging Removal Of Bar Association Members Isn't Maintainable: Allahabad High Court

A Division Bench of Justice Saral Srivastava and Justice Amitabh Kumar Rai passed the order while dealing with a writ petition filed by Naresh Kumar Mishra and three others, who were removed as members of the General Body of the Ekikrit Bar Association, Mati, Kanpur Dehat.

Before the HC, the petitioners challenged an order passed by the Uttar Pradesh State Bar Council (respondent no.1) vacating a stay granted by a committee of the Council on the Bar Association's earlier decision to expel them..

Briefly put, the petitioners were removed as members of the Bar Association. Aggrieved by their expulsion, they approached the State Bar Council alleging that their removal was illegal.

On their application, a committee constituted by the State Bar Council initially stayed the order of expulsion. However, the very next day, the stay order was vacated by the Council through the impugned order passed on August 27, 2025.

During the hearing, the Bench specifically queried the petitioners' counsel as to whether there was any provision of law which allowed them to move an application before the State Bar Council.

The counsel stated that there was no provision under Advocate Act, 1961 wherein the said application could be filed, therefore, the petitioners took a wrong remedy.

Taking note of this admission, the Court held that the application filed by the petitioners before the State Bar Council was misconceived and not maintainable, and consequently, the Court said, any proceedings initiated on its basis were void.

"In view of the aforesaid admission by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the application of the petitioners filed before the respondent no.1 is held to be not maintainable and is misconceived, and accordingly, any proceeding initiated in pursuance of the application of the petitioners by respondent no.1 is also void", the Court observed.

Consequently, the Bench set aside the impugned order passed by the State Bar Council, and dismissed the petitioners' application with liberty to avail appropriate remedy available under law against the expulsion order passed by the Bar Association.

With these observations, the writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.