The Bench, which consisted of Supreme Court on Karnataka SC/ST Quota Plea: Serious, But Rejects Caste & Religious Divides, stated, “Issue is serious and we have to deal with it.. (But) we do not want bar to be divided on caste and religious lines. We don’t want that and we will not allow it to become a political platform. Let’s be clear about that.”
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Friday (14th Feb) addressed a petition filed by some lawyers from Karnataka, who are seeking reservation for lawyers from marginalized communities in bar bodies. The Court acknowledged that this was an important matter but also made it clear that while diversity in bar bodies is necessary, they do not want these bodies to become divided along caste or religious lines.
The Bench, which consisted of Supreme Court on Karnataka SC/ST Quota Plea: Serious, But Rejects Caste & Religious Divides, stated, “Issue is serious and we have to deal with it.. (But) we do not want bar to be divided on caste and religious lines. We don’t want that and we will not allow it to become a political platform. Let’s be clear about that.”
The Court was hearing petitions filed by two groups: the All India Backward Classes Advocates Foundation and the Karnataka SC/ST Backward Classes and Minorities Advocates Federation. These petitions sought reservation for Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), and Other Backward Classes (OBC) in the governing council of the Advocates Association, Bengaluru (AAB).
The petitioners had earlier approached the Karnataka High Court asking for similar reservations, pointing to a recent Supreme Court ruling that directed AAB to reserve at least 30 percent of its seats for women lawyers in the governing council. The High Court had rejected this plea and asked the petitioners to take the matter to the Supreme Court.
ALSO READ: Madras HC Directs TN Govt. to Implement Horizontal Reservation for Transgender Persons
Senior Advocate Madhavi Divan, representing the petitioners, argued that “no member from SC/ST community has been a member of Governing Council of AAB for the last 50 years.” She emphasized that this was a serious issue of access and representation, noting that for five decades, no lawyer from these communities had been included in the governing council of AAB.
Justice Kant remarked that the Court initially did not want to take up the issue because it could lead to broader implications, like opening a “Pandora’s box.”
He explained, “We will not entertain this since it will open a pandoras box. See when Union government gives reservation, they go with the report of expert committee. Presence of women lawyers is something we did in urban areas. (In this case) We have to appoint a committee to collect data on pan-India basis to see who are under-represented and marginalized. Today we do not have data and thus handicapped.”
However, Divan persisted and argued that diversity in the profession is essential, so that lawyers from these communities could take part in the legal field.
She said, “Ultimately, the profession needs role models. Diversity is an important consideration. Thus they have to come into the fold. For so many years there is no representation.”
She also referred to practices from other countries, such as Australia, to support her case.
In response, the Court observed, “We have gone far ahead of all these jurisdictions. We are nobody to comment on them.. but we can assure you that legal community in this country including those who are not well qualified, MPs, MLAs are extremely conscious of inadequate representation.”
Finally, the Court agreed to hear the matter and said it would address this issue alongside another ongoing case concerning bar associations. Both of these matters are now scheduled for hearing on February 17.
Case Title:
