Bar Associations Are Not "State" Under Article 12 Of The Constitution Of India: Bombay High Court's Landmark Ruling

In a recent and significant ruling, the Bombay High Court clarified that Bar Associations do not fall under the definition of "State" as mentioned in Article 12 of the Constitution of India. This judgment has far-reaching implications for legal professionals and constitutional scholars, especially regarding the scope of fundamental rights against private entities.

What Does Article 12 Say?

Article 12 of the Indian Constitution defines the term "State" for the purpose of Part III, which guarantees fundamental rights. According to Article 12, the term includes:

• The Government and Parliament of India,
• The Government and the Legislature of each State,
• All local or other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India.

Essentially, if a body falls under this definition, citizens can seek enforcement of their fundamental rights against it. That’s why determining whether an entity is "State" is crucial.

The Case in Question

The Bombay High Court was dealing with a petition filed by an advocate challenging the decision of a Bar Association which had either denied or restricted some form of membership or participation. The advocate argued that since the Bar Association performs public functions, it should be considered a "State" under Article 12 and be subject to judicial scrutiny under writ jurisdiction.

However, the court held that Bar Associations are private, voluntary associations and cannot be equated with statutory or governmental bodies. Even though they perform some functions that impact the legal profession, they do not derive authority from the Constitution or any statute in a manner that makes them accountable as a State.

Why This Judgment Matters

1. Reaffirms Autonomy of Private Bodies: The ruling reinforces the legal distinction between private bodies and public authorities, even when private bodies deal with public-facing issues.

2. Limits Scope of Writ Petitions: Citizens and lawyers cannot invoke writ jurisdiction under Article 226 against Bar Associations unless a statutory violation is involved.

3. Clarifies Role of Bar Associations: This decision also reiterates that Bar Associations, though influential, are not statutory regulators like the Bar Council of India.

Broader Legal Implications

This ruling aligns with several previous Supreme Court judgments that have narrowly interpreted the term "State" under Article 12. For example:

• In Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Union of India (2005), the Supreme Court held that the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) is not "State".
• In Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology (2002), the SC laid down tests to determine whether a body is “State”—including financial control, functional character, and whether it performs a public duty.

Conclusion

The Bombay High Court's decision acts as a reminder that not every powerful or influential body in India qualifies as "State" under the Constitution. For lawyers and constitutional law enthusiasts, it underlines the importance of identifying who can be held accountable under fundamental rights—and who cannot.

In a democratic framework, such clarity ensures that the balance between individual rights and institutional autonomy is maintained.