The Supreme Court on Friday issued notice on a Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by the Nilgiris District Bar Association challenging a Madras High Court order that had directed the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry to consider granting recognition to the Women Lawyers Association of Nilgiris.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran heard the matter. Senior Advocate V. Mohana, appearing for the petitioner Bar Association, argued that creating a separate association exclusively for women lawyers in the same district was unnecessary and could lead to fragmentation of an already small legal community.
She informed the Court that the Nilgiris Bar has only about 250 members, and the demand for a separate body was raised by merely four women lawyers, one of whom is facing disciplinary proceedings in the High Court. Mohana contended that the move could disrupt the unity of the district’s legal fraternity and create unnecessary divisions within the bar.
After hearing the submissions, the Supreme Court issued notice to the respondents, allowing them to file their stance, and listed the matter for hearing after four weeks.
Background
The case arises from a September 3, 2025 order of the Madras High Court, which had directed the Bar Council to reconsider the application filed by the Women Lawyers Association of Nilgiris seeking recognition and registration.
The High Court Bench of Justice M.S. Ramesh and Justice V. Lakshminarayanan had held that the Bar Council’s position — that only one association could be recognized per district — was legally incorrect and contrary to the Tamil Nadu Advocates Welfare Fund Rules. The Court observed that the rules specifically allow recognition of more than one Bar Association within a district and do not prohibit multiple associations.
The Bench further held that the Bar Council’s rejection of the women lawyers’ application lacked any intelligible differentia and violated Rule 3(4) of the Welfare Fund Rules.
The Women Lawyers Association of Nilgiris, represented by practicing women advocates of the district, had earlier registered itself under Section 10 of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act. The association had approached the High Court after the Bar Council rejected its application under Section 13 of the Tamil Nadu Advocates Welfare Fund Act, 1987, seeking formal recognition and registration.
The petitioners argued that the rejection was arbitrary and that the inspection and inquiry conducted by the Bar Council were not carried out in accordance with law. They maintained that the association was formed with the purpose of protecting the rights, welfare, and professional interests of women advocates in the Nilgiris District.
With the Supreme Court now seized of the matter, the question of whether multiple bar associations can coexist within a single district — and whether a women-only lawyers’ group is entitled to recognition — will likely have wider implications for the organization of legal bodies across Tamil Nadu and beyond.
