Chandrakant vs Karnataka State Bar Council and others. Writ Appeal 100141/2020 decided on 30 November 2020.
Judgment Link: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/352210/1/WA100141-20-30-11-2020.pdf
Relevant paragraph : 36. The observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court and the various High Courts in the long line of rulings narrated supra, obviates any detail discussion with regard to the maintainability of a writ petition against the Bar Association invoking the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India. That apart, as detailed supra, some of the obligation, the 3rd respondent has cast upon itself, bears a public character. The Advocates are not mere arbiters but officers of the court who assist the Court in the running of the justice delivery system and it is such officers of the court who constitute the 3rd respondent Society. That the constituents of the 3rd respondent Society are answerable to the Court and to the 1st respondent with regard to their conduct in the discharge of their professional duties. Both the 1st respondent and the Court can by no stretch of imagination be described as private entities. That apart, if the objects of the 3rd respondent Society are juxtaposed with the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Dwarkanath Vs. Income Tax Officer 1965 (3) SCR 536 and Supreme Court Bar Association and othersvs.B.D.Kaushik (2011)13SCC774 case, it is apparent that the 3rd respondent discharges obligations of a public character. Hence, the writ petition invoking the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a relief as against the 3rd respondent is required to be held as maintainable.
Compiled by S. Basavaraj, Daksha Legal.
Daksha Legal 