In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court has clarified that disputes concerning Bar Association elections should be taken to civil courts, not constitutional courts under Article 226. The bench, consisting of Justices Abhay S Oka and AG Masih, specifically addressed the case involving the Alipore Bar Association, ultimately disposing of the plea while leaving related legal questions unresolved.
The case originated when Subir Sengupta filed a writ petition with the Calcutta High Court, challenging the Alipore Bar Association’s election processes. Sengupta argued that around 400 members were improperly included in the voter list despite not clearing the All India Bar Examination (AIBE). The High Court responded by annulling the election notice and tasked the Bar Council of West Bengal with determining the voting eligibility of those who had not cleared the AIBE.
This decision was later appealed by the Alipore Bar Association, and the Division Bench of the High Court ruled that the writ petition under Article 226 was not maintainable against the Bar Association. The court indicated that election disputes should be brought before a competent civil court within the legally prescribed timeframe.
Unhappy with this outcome, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court. Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, representing the petitioner, argued that the core issue was the inclusion of non-AIBE members in the voter list, not an internal electoral dispute. He highlighted previous High Court rulings that were not enforced, asserting that the writ petition sought to implement those directions.
Justice Oka commented that courts should not be further burdened with Bar Association election disputes, emphasising that such matters should be resolved in civil courts. Following this, Sankaranarayanan withdrew the plea, noting that four other High Courts had ruled differently on similar issues. He requested that the Supreme Court leave the legal question open, which the bench agreed to do in its final order.
