Karnataka HC Declines Plea For Women Reservation In Governing Council Of Advocates' Association Bengaluru, Says Only SC Can Pass Such Order

The Karnataka High Court today (08 May) orally expressed support towards reservation of seats for women in the Governing Council of Advocates' Association Bengaluru.

Justice R Devdas however declined a plea moved by the women members of the Bar Association and Federation of Women Lawyers in this regard, stating that only the Supreme Court can pass such orders.

"All of us are one with you that reservation is to be given but it has to be in accordance with law...If you put across this request from the side of women advocates then appropriate decision would be taken. This court will not be able to pass any such order, approach the Supreme Court...extra ordinary powers available to SC not with us," the Judge orally observed during the hearing.

The plea sought 33% reservation for women in the Association's governing body. The term of the present managing committee and governing council had come to end on December 19, 2024 and election schedule was announced by the AAB today.

The Court however pointed that in the absence of any law compelling reservation in the governing council, it cannot pass such directions.

"The requirement of law is if there is provision made in bye laws and not implemented then you can say it is not being done but, there is no such provision in bye laws. First provision has to be introduced or only Supreme Court can say that dehors of provisions, reservation be provided."

At this juncture, Senior Advocate Lakshmy Iyengar appearing for the petitioners relied on Supreme Court Bar Association (SCAB) vs. BD Kaushil (2024 LiveLaw (SC) 340), where the Supreme Court had directed the implementation of a minimum 1/3rd women's reservation in the SCAB from 2024 elections.

The High Court however said that "...direction issued by SC in decision cited are directions issued under Art 142 of Constitution. Such powers cannot be exercised by this court."

The petitioners also referred to the recent case filed in the Apex Court, where the Court issued notice on two petitions seeking 33% reservation for women lawyers in Delhi's lawyer bodies viz. Bar Council of Delhi (BCD), Delhi High Court Bar Association (DHCBA) and all District Bar Associations.

However, the Court pointed that in its latest order, the Supreme Court has called for information from other Bar Associations. Therefore, at this stage when the issue is pending with the Top court, it will not be permissible for the High Court to pass orders.

Iyengar then requested the Court to postpone elections to the governing council, slated to be held on February 02. "Heavens won't fall. No damage would be done if election date is postponed," he said, pointing that the calendar of events was announced only today, after notice was issued in the present case.

The Court however remarked that the general law on election prescribes otherwise. "No interference can be caused by the court once election process has begun," Court said.

It added that the proper course to grant reservation would be for the Advocates' Association to bring an amendment by following the procedure. "Providing reservation can it be done without provisions in law." However, since elections are announced, Court said, "Now AAB cannot do it, neither can this court do it. It is impermissible."

The order read, "The submission of counsel for petitioners that Delhi HC postponed holding of elections and this court also should issue such directions cannot be accepted...code of conduct has come into operation. Having regard to settled position of law, no courts can pass any order which would cause any interference in elections. It would be thus imprmisible to issue any directions to Election officer or HPC to provide reservation to Governing council or Managing committee without there being any provisions in byelaws."

Senior Advocate Jayna Kothari appearing for another petitioner urged the Court that if elections are not stayed, then women candidates who contest and lose without reservation will be deprived for three years (tenure of governing council).

Unimpressed, the Court orally remarked, "I am saying again and again that such order can be passed by the Supreme Court. Please approach the SC...You will have to follow the procedure to amend the byelaws. Request is to be made and placed before the general body of AAB. Courts cannot pass such directions dehors provisions in byelaws."

President of AAB, Senior Advocate Vivek Subba Reddy also expressed support for reservation. However, he added that since the Supreme Court is seized of the matter, "it would not be possible to wade into the area."

The High Court finally granted liberty to the Petitioners to approach the Supreme Court.

Case Title: KARNATAKA FEDERATION OF WOMEN LAWYERS & ANR v. State of Karnataka & Others

Case No: WP 123/2025

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 8