The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday stayed the suspension of four women advocates from the KR Pete Bar Association in Mandya District..Advocates SD Sarojamma, MN Vani, K Manjula and Ramya HR had moved the High Court after they were allegedly suspended by the Bar Association for organising a Women's Day event on court premises. Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum today stayed their suspension and directed the office-bearers of the KR Pete Bar Association to ensure that the four advocates are not denied access to facilities until the next date of hearing."Lady advocates are being punished by suspending their membership on the premise that they have celebrated International Women’s Day. Prima facie, without looking, without adverting to the records, the photographic evidence demonstrates that the predatory action is contemplated by the office-bearers of the K R Pete Bar association...Matter requires consideration; accordingly, suspension of the four lady advocates is stayed till next date of hearing. The office bearers shall ensure that the facilities available at the Association are not denied to these petitioners till next date of hearing,” the Court said in its order..During the hearing, Justice Magadum pulled up the Secretary of the Bar Association, warning him that the Court would order him to pay for Women's Day events from now on from his own pocket.“Who is the Secretary of the Bar Association? What’s wrong with him? Will allow this writ and order the Secretary of that association is to conduct Women’s Day celebration spending from his pocket every year,” the judge orally remarked..The controversy arose after an International Women’s Day event was held on March 9, 2026 by women advocates in collaboration with the Legal Services Authority. The four petitioner-advocates were suspended by the KR Pete Bar Association for a period of six months by an order dated March 10, 2026. The Bar Association’s President and Secretary allegedly opposed the conduct of the event as the organisers had not sought prior permission from the Association.The four advocates subsequently moved the High Court, challenging the decision to suspend them, contending that it was unilateral and arbitrary. They claimed that the decision to suspend the petitioners from membership was taken by the President and the Secretary without holding any executive committee meeting. They also claimed that they were not issued any show cause notice or given an opportunity of hearing. Counsel for the petitioners, Advocate MS Nagaraja, contended that the advocates were penalised merely for organising the event without inviting the Association’s office-bearers.It was further submitted that the Association was preventing the petitioners from attending court and even denying them access to basic facilities such as washrooms.Nagaraja also challenged the Association's claim that the suspension order was passed based on a resolution dated July 31, 2025. Nagaraja pointed out that the resolution merely recorded absenteeism of certain advocates in general body meetings and there was no specific agenda or decision to initiate disciplinary action against the present petitioners.
