The Karnataka High Court has temporarily halted the elections for the Tumakuru District Advocates Association, which were initially planned for April 5. The decision comes after a petition filed by women members of the Bar Association, contesting the rejection of their demand for a 33% reservation in the elections.
Justice M. Nagaprasanna issued the stay order after reviewing the petitioners' arguments, which emphasized that denying their request violated their constitutional rights.
Read Also:- Karnataka HC Criticizes RTC for Contradictory Stands in Bus Driver's Case
The petition urged the court to mandate the implementation of 33% reservation for women in the upcoming elections. It also challenged the Association’s decision, which dismissed the demand.
Advocate Vidyashree K.S., representing the petitioners, cited the Supreme Court's ruling in Deeksha N. Amruthesh v. State of Karnataka, asserting that the issue had already been addressed by the apex court. She further emphasized the urgency of interim relief since the election process was scheduled to begin the following day with the call for nominations.
The High Court instructed the petitioners to serve notices to the respondents and scheduled the next hearing for March 21.
Background of the Petition
As per the petition, the women advocates had submitted a formal request on March 5 to the Election Officer and President of the Tumakuru Bar Association. Their letter sought 33% reservation in the total existing posts to promote gender inclusion.
Read Also:- Karnataka High Court Petition Challenges Bar Council Extension, Seeks Fresh Elections
However, on March 17, the Tumakuru District Advocates Association turned down the request. The Association cited its 1960 bylaws, particularly Bylaw No. VIII, which already reserves one position in the executive committee for women. It further explained that any decision on additional reservations would require a full committee meeting, which the current committee lacked the authority to convene. Additionally, it was argued that there was insufficient time to arrange such a meeting before the elections.
Petitioners’ Arguments
The petitioners assert that the Association’s refusal to consider the 33% reservation disregards constitutional principles and progressive jurisprudence. They argue that denying their request due to procedural constraints—such as the committee’s lack of authority and time limitations—amounts to an unreasonable excuse.
“The Association, as a democratic body, should facilitate discussions on crucial issues impacting a significant portion of its members.”
The petitioners claim that rejecting their plea is arbitrary and unjust, violating their fundamental rights under Articles 14, 15, and 19(1)(c) of the Indian Constitution.
“Denying the petitioners’ request for 33% reservation despite a substantial number of female members in the Association constitutes gender discrimination and goes against the principles of equality and non-discrimination,” the plea states.
Case Title: Mohanalumar K R & Others AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WP 8186/2025
Appearance: Advocate Vidyashree K S for Petitioner.
