Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court has dismissed two petitions seeking reservations for Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), and Other Backward Classes (OBC) in the governing council of the Advocates Association, Bengaluru (AAB). The petitions were filed by the All India Backward Classes Advocates Foundation and the Karnataka SC/ST Backward Classes and Minorities Advocates Federation.
Justice R. Devdas, while rejecting the petitions, advised the petitioners to approach the Supreme Court for further redress. The petitioners had argued that since the Supreme Court had recently mandated a 30 percent reservation for women in the AAB governing council, similar provisions should be made for SC, ST, and OBC candidates.
The Karnataka High Court ruled that its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution do not permit it to impose caste-based reservations on AAB, as the association’s existing bye-laws do not include such provisions. In contrast, the Supreme Court’s directive for women’s reservation was issued under Article 142, which grants the apex court special powers to pass orders for complete justice.
“The Advocates Association, Bengaluru, is a body with members from the Bar and also receives state funds. The petitioners argue that since AAB has implemented reservations for women, it should extend the same principle to all constitutionally recognized reservations, whether vertical or horizontal,” the court observed.
On January 24, 2025, the Supreme Court, in a landmark decision, directed AAB to ensure 30 percent reservation for women lawyers in its governing council. The Bench, comprising Justices Surya Kant and N. Kotiswar Singh, also mandated that the treasurer’s position be exclusively reserved for women.
The petitioners contended that the absence of SC/ST/OBC representatives in AAB’s history justified the demand for caste-based reservations. However, the High Court refrained from commenting on AAB’s resolutions implementing the Supreme Court’s order and suggested that those seeking similar benefits should approach the apex court.
With the High Court’s refusal to intervene, the petitioners may now escalate the matter to the Supreme Court, seeking a broader interpretation of reservation policies in professional associations. Legal experts suggest that if the Supreme Court finds merit in their arguments, it could set a precedent for reservations in other professional bodies across the country.
