No Statutory Bar In Recognising More Than One Association: High Court Asks TN Bar Council To Consider Plea Of Nilgiris Women Lawyers Body

The bench of Justice MS Ramesh and Justice V Lakshminarayanan held that the Bar Council's view, that only one association could be recognised in a district, was misconceived and contrary to the Welfare Fund Rules, which specifically provided that the Bar Council could recognise more than one Bar Association. The court also added that the rules did not prohibit recognising more than one bar association.

“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. It is common knowledge that more than one recognized Bar Association exists in several districts of Tamil Nadu,” the court said.

The court thus opined that the Bar Council's decision was not based on any intelligible differentia and was violative of Rule 3(4) of the Welfare Fund Rules.

The Women Lawyers Association had approached the court after the Bar Council rejected their application under Section 13 of the Tamil Nadu Advocates Welfare Fund Act 1987 seeking recognition and registration of the association.

The women's association had submitted that it was registered under Section 10 of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act in the file of the Registrar of Societies. It was thus argued that the association was a legally constituted body formed by the practicing women advocates in the Nilgiris District with an object to protect the interests of the woman lawyers and to ensure their well-being. It was argued that the Bar Council had arbitrarily rejected the application seeking recognition and registration, and the prior inspection and enquiry conducted by it was not in accordance with the law.

The Bar Council, on the other hand, argued that an inspection was conducted, and it was found that among the total strength of 34 women advocates practicing in the Nilgiris district, the majority of members expressed that they wanted to continue their membership in the Nilgiris District Bar Association and owing to some internal dispute among women advocates, very few members alone had decided to start a separate association.

The Bar Council also submitted that it had resolved to recognise only one association in one court centre, and since the petitioner association was the second association, it was felt that it was not essential to grant recognition, and therefore, the Bar Council had resolved to reject the petitioner's application.

The Nilgiris District Bar Association endorsed the Bar Council's resolution to reject the application and submitted that the women's association had only 13 members, as against its claim of 41 advocates.

The court noted that Section 13 of the Welfare Fund Act provides for recognition, and registration of an association of advocates by the Bar Council on an application, with the procedure for consideration of such an application.

The court also noted that the Bar Council seemed to have exceeded its own authority and acted as a fact-finding body and relied upon its own resolution to recognise only one association in the court, rejecting the petitioner's application.

“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 to form an Association as a disentitlement to claim recognition / registration. 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. We also do not find any rationale behind the decision of the Bar Council to consult the disgruntled association, which had not approved the decision of certain women advocates who had resigned from that association and formed a separate one,' the court said.

The court thus directed the Bar Council to reconsider the application for registration.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. T. Murugamanickam Senior Counsel for Mr. V. Rajesh

Counsel for Respondents: Mr. C. K. Chandrasekar, Mr. Naveen Kumar Murthi, Mr. Srujith Krishna, Mr. Kannan Kumar

Case Title: Women Lawyers Association of Nilgiris v. The Secretary and others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 295

Case No: W.P.No.6176 of 2025