No 33% Quota: Karnataka HC Dismisses Pleas for Women’s Reservation in Bar Polls

The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday dismissed a series of petitions seeking 33% reservation for women advocates in the governing body of the Advocates Association, Bengaluru (AAB). The elections for the governing body are scheduled for February 2, 2025.

Justice R. Devdas ruled that the High Court lacked the authority to intervene in the election process once it was underway, especially since the final voters’ list had already been published.

Court’s Observations

The Court noted that the AAB’s current by-laws do not provide for any reservation for women advocates, and it cannot direct the association to include such provisions at this stage. Justice Devdas emphasised the settled principle of law that courts cannot interfere with ongoing elections:

“No courts can pass any order which would cause any interference in elections. It would thus be impermissible to issue any directions to the election officer or the high-powered committee of AAB to provide reservation for women members of the Bar in its governing council or managing committee without there being any provisions in existing by-laws.”

The Court also referred to the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment in SCBA v. BD Kaushik, where the apex court, using its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, directed the Supreme Court Bar Association to reserve one-third of its seats for women advocates. Justice Devdas, however, clarified that High Courts do not possess similar powers under Article 142 and cannot issue such directions.

Petitioners’ Argument

The petitioners, represented by Advocate Deekshana Amruthesh and the Karnataka Federation of Women Lawyers, contended that without intervention, women advocates would lose their opportunity for representation for another three years, until the next AAB elections.

They also cited the case of Fozia Rahman v. Bar Council of Delhi, where elections were postponed under comparable circumstances. However, the High Court distinguished the present case, noting that special leave petitions (SLPs) were pending before the Supreme Court in the cited matter and the scenarios were not identical.

AAB’s Response

Senior Advocate Vivek Subba Reddy, appearing for the AAB, informed the Court that the existing governing body had ceased to exist as of December 18, 2024, and therefore could not act on the petitioners’ demand. However, he assured the Court that the association would consider the demand for reservation and the petitioners’ prior representation to amend its by-laws after the upcoming elections.

Court’s Suggestion

Acknowledging the petitioners’ concerns, the High Court suggested that they approach the Supreme Court for relief. Justice Devdas also noted that the Supreme Court has already begun gathering relevant information and data from High Courts and bar associations nationwide to formulate directions for ensuring women’s representation in bar elections.

Legal Representation

• For Petitioners: Senior Advocates Lakshmy Iyengar and Jayna Kothari
• For AAB: Senior Advocate Vivek Subba Reddy