Madurai Bench Rejects ‘Deemed Amendment’ Argument, Dismisses Challenge to MMBA Election Candidates
The Madurai Bench held that a Bar Association's rules cannot be deemed amended to enforce ‘One Bar, One Vote’ when the Association itself has never passed such a resolution.
A Division Bench of the Madras High Court, sitting at Madurai, dismissed a writ petition that sought to disqualify three candidates from contesting and voting in the elections to the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court Bar Association (MMBA). The petitioner, herself a contestant for the post of General Secretary, argued that respondents 4 to 6 should be barred because they were simultaneously members of the Women Advocate Association and, in two cases, had previously contested posts within that association. The Bench, comprising Justice C.V. Karthikeyan and Justice R. Sakthivel, with the order authored by Justice C.V. Karthikeyan, held squarely that no court can impose a ‘One Bar, One Vote’ restriction on an association whose members have not themselves voted to introduce it.
The Dispute Before the Madurai Bench
G.K. Chitradevi, an advocate practising at the Madurai Bench and a candidate for the post of General Secretary in the MMBA elections, filed WP(MD) No. 10780 of 2026 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petition sought a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for and quash records relating to the inclusion of respondents 4, 5, and 6 — P. Jessi Jeeva Priya, Chamundi Bose, and K.R. Shiva Shankari — in the final list of contesting candidates dated 10 April 2026 for the MMBA election.
The sequence of events was narrow. The list of nominees was first published on 4 April 2026 by a previous Election Officer, who resigned on 8 April 2026. A new Election Officer, the second respondent Kalaiyarasi Bharathy, was appointed on 10 April 2026. On the same date, a final list of candidates was published — purportedly prepared on 8 April 2026 — in which respondents 4 and 5 appeared as candidates for General Secretary, and respondent 6 appeared as a candidate for Vice President, a post reserved for women.
The petitioner's grievance was twofold: that the three respondents should not have been permitted to contest, and that they should not be allowed to vote in the MMBA elections, because they were members of the Women Advocate Association and two of them had previously contested posts within that association.
The Legal Issue: Can a Rule Be ‘Deemed’ Amended?
The core legal question was whether the ‘One Bar, One Vote’ principle could apply to MMBA in the absence of any rule change by the association itself.
Counsel for the petitioner relied principally on a 2021 Division Bench judgment of this Court in V. Madhesh v. Secretary, Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry (W.P. No. 1571 of 2019, decided 20 January 2021). In that case, the Division Bench had examined the practice of enrolling non-practising advocates as members of bar associations to influence elections, issued a series of guidelines requiring associations to adopt the ‘One Advocate, One Vote’ principle, and declared that until an association amended its by-laws accordingly, such an amendment should be “deemed” to have been brought into effect.
Petitioner's counsel also placed reliance on the Supreme Court's judgment reported at 2011 (13) SCC 774 in Supreme Court Bar Association and Others v. B.D. Kaushik, where the Supreme Court upheld a rule amendment in the Supreme Court Bar Association restricting members to vote in only one association, holding it was a reasonable restriction on a statutory right rather than a fundamental right.
A further judgment of the Delhi High Court Division Bench in PK Dash, Advocate and Others v. Bar Council of Delhi and Others, W.P. (C) No. 8106 of 2010 (decided 31 May 2016), was also cited. That Bench had applied the Supreme Court's reasoning and directed that a ‘One Bar, One Vote’ rule be incorporated in every Bar Association under its jurisdiction.
The Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry, the first respondent, broadly supported the petitioner. Its Standing Counsel pointed to the Bar Council of India Certificate and Place of Practice (Verification) Rules, 2015, specifically Form-A to be submitted under Rule 8.3. Column 18 of that form asks an advocate to name the Bar Association for which they intend to cast their vote. Counsel argued that because the form refers to one association, only one vote in one association could be permitted.
How the Bench Reasoned
The Bench disposed of the challenge in several steps, dealing first with the Vice President post and then with the General Secretary contest.
On the Vice President post, the court observed that respondent 6 was the sole candidate. The post was reserved for women. The petitioner, being male, could not have contested it. Any woman candidate, by the logic of the petitioner's own argument, would also by default be a member of the Women Advocate Association. The Bench described this aspect of the petition plainly: “it is poor argument on the part of the petitioner to contest the eligibility of the 6th respondent.”
On the General Secretary posts contested by respondents 4 and 5, the Bench made a factual and legal finding of some consequence. Respondents 4 to 6 are women advocates. As women, they are automatically enrolled as members of the Women Advocate Association. They cannot automatically become members of MMBA — that requires an application, payment of subscription, and formal recognition. The Bench held that their automatic membership of the Women Advocate Association is a status that must be recognised and honoured. Once MMBA accepted their membership, it could not retrospectively deny them the rights that membership confers, including the right to vote and contest.
The Bench then addressed the central legal argument head-on. It drew a clear distinction between the Madhesh judgment and the facts before it. The Madhesh Division Bench had issued guidelines and declared that a deemed amendment would apply where an association had not yet acted. The present Bench declined to follow that fictional construct. Its reasoning was direct: a rule restricts a right only when it is actually in force; MMBA had made a considered decision — by inaction over many years since both the 2011 Supreme Court judgment and the 2016 Delhi High Court judgment — not to introduce such a restriction.
The court noted that MMBA was functioning well before both 2011 and 2016. Its office-bearers, as law professionals, were aware of the legal developments. No resolution was ever proposed, recommended, or put to a vote to restrict membership voting to a single association. “There is no indication that only one Association could be mentioned” in Form-A, the Bench observed of the Bar Council's argument, adding that no instance had been placed before it of any advocate's certificate of practice being rejected for naming more than one association in that column.
The Bench stated the governing principle in unambiguous terms: an amendment to the rules of a society can only come into effect when a majority of its members vote for it. A single member cannot approach a court to project that a rule should be deemed to have been brought into effect. The court similarly cannot thrust an amendment onto an independent body whose members have collectively, if silently, chosen not to introduce it.
The distinction from Supreme Court Bar Association v. B.D. Kaushik was equally clear. The Supreme Court in that case examined a rule that had already been amended; it upheld the restriction as a reasonable one. No such amendment existed in MMBA's rules. The Bench therefore found that precedent to be inapplicable.
On the Argument of Deemed Amendment
The Bench was direct in its rejection of the deemed-amendment approach. It held that there can be no assumption of an amendment in a society with several members. Any restriction on a member's rights must flow from an actual rule change adopted by the body through a proper voting process. Where no such change has been made, the court cannot impose it, regardless of how desirable the underlying principle may be.
The practical consequence of this reasoning is that the ‘One Bar, One Vote’ principle, endorsed by the Supreme Court and two High Courts, operates on the members of MMBA only if and when MMBA's own members choose to adopt it by amending their by-laws. Until that step is taken, members who belong to multiple associations retain their existing rights under MMBA's current rules.
Outcome
The Division Bench dismissed WP(MD) No. 10780 of 2026. Because the elections had already been conducted by the time the order was pronounced on 24 July 2026, the Bench directed that the results be published. Connected miscellaneous petitions W.M.P.(MD) Nos. 8437 and 8438 of 2026 were closed. There was no order as to costs.