Karnataka High Court Declines to Mandate Reservations for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Backward Classes in Advocates Association Elections, Citing Lack of Authority Under Article 142; Jurisdiction Lies with Supreme Court

Court’s Decision:

The Karnataka High Court refused to issue directions for implementing a 50% reservation policy for Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), and Backward Classes in the Advocates Association of Bengaluru. The Court emphasized its inability to invoke powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, which are exclusive to the Supreme Court. Consequently, the Court disposed of the petitions, directing the petitioners to seek redress from the Supreme Court if necessary.

Facts:

1. The petitioners, representing various advocates’ organizations, sought the following:
   • Implementation of a 50% reservation for SCs, STs, and Backward Classes in governing body elections of the Advocates Association of Bengaluru.
   • Rotation-based reservation for women and other disadvantaged groups.
2. They argued that such measures were essential for fair representation of marginalized communities in the association’s leadership.
3. They pointed to a precedent where the Supreme Court ordered reservations for women in specific posts within the Advocates Association.
4. The Advocates Association, in response to a prior Supreme Court directive, had created an additional post of Treasurer exclusively for women candidates and adjusted its election schedule accordingly.
5. However, the petitioners highlighted that while the Association had implemented reservations for women, it ignored similar demands for SCs, STs, and Backward Classes.

Issues:

The following legal questions arose:

1. Does the High Court have the authority to mandate reservations for SCs, STs, and Backward Classes in the Advocates Association?
2. Can the High Court direct an amendment to the Advocates Association’s by-laws to include such reservations?
3. Are the petitioners’ claims for reservations valid under the constitutional framework, particularly in light of Article 14 (Equality) and precedents from the Supreme Court?

Petitioner’s Arguments:

1. Lack of Representation:
   • The petitioners pointed out that no member of the SC, ST, or Backward Class communities had ever held leadership positions in the Advocates Association.
   • They argued that this failure violated the constitutional mandate of equality under Article 14.
2. Supreme Court Precedent:
   • The petitioners cited the Supreme Court’s orders dated January 24, 2025, and January 28, 2025, which directed reservation for women in the Advocates Association.
   • They contended that similar logic should apply to SCs, STs, and Backward Classes.
3. Resolution Passed by the Association:
   • They emphasized that the Association had already passed a resolution to create new posts and implement women’s reservations. They argued that this demonstrated a willingness to accommodate reservations.
4. Public Function and Accountability:
   • They argued that the Advocates Association performs public functions and receives funding from the State, making it subject to judicial scrutiny under Article 226.

Respondent’s Arguments:

1. Jurisdictional Limitations:
   • The respondents argued that the High Court lacks the authority to mandate such reservations, as this power lies with the Association itself or the Supreme Court under Article 142.
2. Association’s Autonomy:
   • The Advocates Association argued that its by-laws do not currently provide for reservations, and any such changes would require the approval of its General Body.
3. Adherence to Bye-Laws:
   • The respondents contended that implementing reservations without amending the by-laws would be procedurally improper and could disrupt the election process.

Analysis of the Law:

1. Article 226 vs. Article 142:
   • The High Court reiterated that it lacks the extraordinary powers granted to the Supreme Court under Article 142, which allows the Supreme Court to issue directions beyond statutory limits in the interest of complete justice.
   • The Supreme Court had invoked Article 142 to implement women’s reservations in its earlier orders.
2. Judicial Review of Public Bodies:
   • The court acknowledged that the Advocates Association, as a body performing public functions, is subject to judicial review under Article 226.
   • However, it held that judicial review is limited to ensuring compliance with existing laws and does not extend to creating new provisions like reservations.
3. Equality under Article 14:
   • While the petitioners argued that the lack of reservations violated Article 14, the court held that this issue requires a legislative or Supreme Court intervention, as the Advocates Association’s by-laws are silent on reservations.

Precedent Analysis:

1. Supreme Court Cases:
   • In Fozia Rahman v. Bar Council of Delhi, the Supreme Court directed reservations for women in Bar Associations, citing its powers under Article 142.
   • In Supreme Court Bar Association v. B.D. Kaushik, similar directions were issued under extraordinary circumstances.
2. High Court Limitations:
   • The High Court noted that these cases involved the Supreme Court’s extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 and could not serve as precedents for High Courts.

Court’s Reasoning:

1. Role of Supreme Court:
   • The court stated that the Supreme Court has explicitly mentioned in its orders that the directions for women’s reservations were issued under Article 142.
   • It emphasized that the High Court cannot exercise similar powers.
2. Association’s Autonomy:
   • The court refrained from commenting on the resolution passed by the Advocates Association to create additional posts for women, leaving it to the Supreme Court to address.
3. Procedural Limitations:
   • The court noted that without a specific provision in the by-laws, any directive for reservations would exceed its jurisdiction.

Conclusion:

The High Court dismissed the petitions, holding that:

• The issue of reservations for SCs, STs, and Backward Classes in the Advocates Association cannot be resolved by the High Court.
• Such matters should be taken up with the Supreme Court, which has the authority to issue appropriate directions under Article 142.

Implications:

1. Reinforces Jurisdictional Boundaries:
   • The judgment underscores the limitations of High Courts in addressing policy matters requiring legislative or Supreme Court intervention.
2. Role of Supreme Court:
   • The case highlights the importance of Article 142 as a tool for ensuring social justice in the absence of legislative provisions.
3. Advocacy for Marginalized Groups:
   • The decision brings attention to the lack of representation of marginalized communities in professional associations, potentially spurring broader discussions on systemic reforms.

Also Read – Bombay High Court Upholds Constitutionality of Section 73AAA of Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960; Rejects Challenge to Restriction on Number of Directors in Tribal Development Corporation