Karnataka High Court rejects pleas seeking 33% reservation for women lawyers in bar elections

The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday dismissed a batch of petitions seeking 33 per cent reservation for women advocates in the governing body of the Advocates Association, Bengaluru (AAB), the elections for which are scheduled for February 2 this year..Justice R Devdas dismissed the petitions filed by Advocate Deekshana Amruthesh and the Karnataka Federation of Women Lawyers, after observing that the High Court did not have any power to interfere once the election process and related activities were already underway.The Court further said that the existing by-laws of AAB did not provide for any reservation for women advocates and, therefore, it cannot direct AAB to provide such reservation.“Having regard to the settled position of law, no courts can pass any order which would cause any interference in elections. It would be 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 said..The Court further said that it could not halt the election scheduled for February 2 this year and follow the path taken by the Supreme Court in the case of SCBA v. BD Kaushik.The Supreme Court, Justice Devdas said, had exercised its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution and directed the Supreme Court Bar Association to reserve a minimum of one-third seats for women advocates while electing its office bearers.However, High Courts did not have such power, he said..“Besides, the Supreme Court has already commenced the process for calling relevant information and data from high courts and bar associations in country to issue suitable directions to enable providing reservation,” the High Court said..Supreme Court orders 30% women's reservation in Delhi bar bodies on trial basis.The petitioners’ counsel had also cited the case of Fozia Rahman v. Bar Council of Delhi, where elections had been postponed under similar circumstances.The Court, however, said in the above case, SLPs had also been filed before the Supreme Court and the circumstances were different..Counsel for the AAB told the Court that while the Association was not opposed to the petitioners’ demand, the existing governing body had ceased to exist after its term came to an end on December 18 last year. Therefore, it was unable to make a statement before the Court.Reddy, however, told the Court that 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 had also argued that if they lost out on a chance this year, they would have to wait for another three years - until the next AAB elections - to claim such reservation.The High Court however, said that its hands were tied and suggested that the petitioners move the Supreme Court for relief..Senior Advocates Lakshmy Iyengar and Jayna Kothari appeared for the petitioners.Senior Advocate Vivek Subba Reddy appeared for the AAB.