The Karnataka High Court Today (Jan 8) dismissed petitions seeking 33% reservation for women advocates in the Advocates Association Bengaluru (AAB) governing body, citing its lack of authority to interfere in ongoing elections and the absence of such provisions in AAB’s by-laws. The court referenced the Supreme Court’s powers under Article 142, which the High Court does not possess, and suggested the petitioners approach the Supreme Court for relief. AAB assured the court it would consider the demand for reservation and amend its by-laws after the upcoming elections on February 2.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
BENGALURU: The Karnataka High Court today dismissed petitions seeking 33% reservation for women advocates in the governing body of the Advocates Association Bengaluru (AAB).
These elections are set to take place on February 2.
Justice R. Devdas ruled against the petitions filed by Advocate Deekshana Amruthesh and the Karnataka Federation of Women Lawyers, stating that the High Court lacks the authority to intervene once the election process has begun.
The court observed that the by-laws of AAB currently do not provide for any reservation for women advocates. Therefore, it could not instruct AAB to introduce such a provision. The court explained:
“Having regard to the settled position of law, 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 bylaws.”
The High Court also noted that stopping the scheduled election for February 2 would not be possible. It referred to a precedent set by the Supreme Court in the SCBA v. BD Kaushik case, where the apex court used its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to ensure a one-third reservation for women advocates in the Supreme Court Bar Association’s elections.
Justice Devdas emphasized that High Courts do not have similar powers. He added:
“Besides, the Supreme Court has already commenced the process for calling relevant information and data from high courts and bar associations in the country to issue suitable directions to enable providing reservation.”
The petitioners also cited the case of Fozia Rahman v. Bar Council of Delhi, where elections had been postponed under similar circumstances. However, the High Court clarified that the facts and legal positions in that case were different, and even Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) had been filed in the Supreme Court.
Counsel representing the AAB stated that the association was not opposed to the demand for reservations. However, the governing body’s term had expired on December 18, and it no longer had the authority to make decisions. The counsel assured the court:
“Following the upcoming elections, AAB will consider the petitioners’ demand and a previous representation made by them asking for such reservation and propose the amendment of its by-laws accordingly.”
During the hearing, the petitioners expressed concerns that if their demand was not addressed now, they would have to wait three more years until the next election cycle to raise the issue again.
However, the High Court reiterated its limited jurisdiction in the matter and suggested:
“The petitioners may move the Supreme Court for relief.”
Senior Advocates Lakshmy Iyengar and Jayna Kothari represented the petitioners
Senior Advocate Vivek Subba Reddy appeared on behalf of AAB.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on 33% Reservation For Women Lawyers
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
