- Home
- /
- High Courts
- /
- Delhi High Court
- /
- Bar Associations Do Not Perform...
Bar Associations Do Not Perform Public Functions, Not State Under Article 12: Delhi High Court
Nupur Thapliyal
19 Jan 2026 11:15 AM IST
The Delhi High Court has ruled that Bar Associations do not perform public functions and are not a State or its instrumentality under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. A division bench comprising Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia said that functions discharged by Bar Associations are to protect the interest of the individual lawyers and it cannot be termed to be...
This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers
Subscribe Premium
INR 1099+GST
Your support helps us to bring you more content at
an affordable subscription scheme !!!
All payment options available
The Delhi High Court has ruled that Bar Associations do not perform public functions and are not a State or its instrumentality under Article 12 of the Constitution of India.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia said that functions discharged by Bar Associations are to protect the interest of the individual lawyers and it cannot be termed to be 'State'.
The Court dismissed a lawyer's plea challenging a single judge order rejecting her plea seeking a direction on the Bar Council of Delhi to take action against various Advocates who allegedly indulged in trespassing in her chamber.
Upholding the single judge order, the Bench said that as a Bar Associations does not perform public functions, no mandamus can be issued to it in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
It added that the acts of the lawyers, as complained of, may warrant criminal action, however, the single judge had rightly observed that the woman lawyer could take appropriate steps by instituting proceedings under the criminal law so as to put criminal law machinery in motion.
The Court observed that one of the duties cast on the Bar Council is to take appropriate disciplinary action in case of reported misconduct by a lawyer and therefore, the woman ought to have approached the Bar Council instead of filing the writ petition seeking a Mandamus for issuing direction to the Bar Council to take action.
“Notwithstanding dismissal of the instant appeal, it is needless to say that it will always be open to the appellant to take recourse to appropriate civil or criminal action, as may be permissible under law by invoking the appropriate jurisdiction of a Court of competent jurisdiction or by approaching the authority concerned, including the Bar Council of Delhi,” the Court said.
Counsel for Appellant: Mr. Shishir Pinaki, Mr. Rakesh Singh, Mr. Shavnam Singh, Advs. with the petitioner in person
Counsel for Respondents: Mr. Ashish Garg & Mr. Govind Singh, Advs
Title: SANGITA RAI v. NEW DELHI BAR ASSOCIATION & ORS
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 82
Nupur Thapliyal
Nupur Thapliyal is a Principal Correspondent with LiveLaw, based in New Delhi. She reports from the Delhi High Court and trial courts in the national capital


