'Won't Permit Bar To Be Divided On Caste/Religion Lines': Supreme Court In Plea For SC/ST/OBC Reservation In Bengaluru Advocates' Assn

Dealing with pleas seeking reservation in the Advocates' Association, Bengaluru for lawyers belonging to Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes and backward communities, the Supreme Court today expressed that it will neither permit Bar members to be divided on caste/religion lines nor let the issue be politicized.

"There are serious arguable issues from both sides, which can be deliberated in a healthy atmosphere. We don't want the Bars to be divided on caste lines or religion lines...That is not our intention and that we are not going to allow also. Let's not go by slogans. We will also not allow it to become a political playground", said Justice Surya Kant.

A bench of Justices Kant and N Kotiswar Singh tagged the pleas with a special bench matter (Re: Strengthening and Enhancing the Institutional Strength of Bar Associations v. The Registrar General) coming up on February 17, which pertains to reforms in bar associations.

During the hearing, Senior Advocate Madhavi Divan, for petitioners, urged that in AAB (which represents lawyers all across Karnataka), not even one member from the SC/ST community has been elected in the past 50 years. She emphasized on the importance of diversity in holders of key positions, saying young members of the Bar need role models. Further, stressing on the issue of access, the senior counsel referred to measures/affirmative actions taken in other jurisdictions like USA, Canada and Australia to secure adequate representation to underrepresented classes (like people of color, women, etc.).

"Please consider, it is very serious. We are talking of access. Ultimately, people need role models in the profession. These are considerations we now know from your lordships' minutes when these collegium minutes are recorded. Diversity is an important consideration. But how do people even get into the net where they are even considered? They have to have positions of recognition...generally, Bar Associations are voices on larger issues...all of them are not confined to the legal community", Divan said.

Hearing her, Justice Kant remarked that the issue is indeed a "sensitive one" and would have to be dealt with. However, as of today, the Court is handicapped as it does not have relevant facts and figures. On the reference to measures taken in other jurisdictions, without commenting on the position in those jurisdictions out of mutual institutional respect, the judge assured that Parliamentarians in India are sensitive to the need for adequate representation.

"This will open Pandora's box...We will go into this question in another petition pending before us relating to reforms in Bar Associations...These are cases where we require some data, assessment...how many people from particular communities are there in the legal profession, to what extent they are underrepresented...When Union of India provides reservation, they first go with the reports of Expert Commissions...we understand that there are underrepresented, marginalized communities those who have not got any opportunity, but instead of thrusting upon something...you see, when legislation comes for reservation, there are lots of debates...there are facts and figures available. With informed knowledge, you take decision. Today we are completely handicapped", said Justice Kant.

The judge also indicated that when the matter comes up next time, the Court would have to appoint an independent Commission/Committee. "On pan-India basis, we would like to have data collected", said J Kant.

Notably, the petitions before the Court were filed pursuant to a Karnataka High Court order refusing to direct Advocates' Association, Bengaluru to take steps for providing overall 50% reservation to SC/ST and backward communities (which could also include women reservation) in the governing body of the Association, during the ensuing elections.

It may be recalled that in January this year, as an interim measure, the Supreme Court directed that the post of Treasurer in AAB's elections scheduled for February 2, 2025 be exclusively earmarked for women candidates. It further said that the High-Powered Committee and the Chief Returning Officer may consider desirability of reserving atleast 30% of other Governing Council posts for women lawyers, to ensure their adequate representation. In doing so, the Court invoked its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution and issued directions similar to those passed in the case of Delhi High Court and District Bar Associations.

Few days later, some male advocates filed applications pointing out that they had already filed nominations for the post of Treasurer. As such, the Court modified its order and directed that additional posts of Vice-President and Governing Council members shall be deemed to have been created to accommodate those who had filed nominations by the time the order directing reservation was passed.

During these proceedings, it was also informed that the concerned Regulations provided for eligibility criteria of 8 yrs. experience at the Bar to hold the post of Treasurer and/or a post in Governing Council of AAB. However, the said cap was precluded by virtue of order dated January 24. Considering, the Court clarified its earlier order and said that the eligibility criteria (of 8 yrs. experience) shall be adhered to.

Case Title: ADVOCATES FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE Versus THE BENGALURU ADVOCATES ASSOCIATION AND ORS., SLP(C) No. 3847/2025 (and connected cases)