The Lucknow Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, comprising Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Manjive Shukla, has held that the mandatory 30 percent reservation for women advocates in Bar Associations must apply across all executive posts on a rotational basis. Ruling on a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) concerning the Sultanpur Bar Association, the court directed the rescheduling of the association’s upcoming elections to allow fresh nominations under a structured 30 percent reservation roster for female lawyers.
Background of the Case
The petition was instituted by Shashi Mishra, a member of the Sultanpur Bar Association, seeking a writ of mandamus to enforce directives issued by the Supreme Court of India under Article 142 of the Constitution of India in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 1404 of 2025 (Deeksha N Amruthesh vs. State of Karnataka & Ors.). The petitioner sought the implementation of 30 percent representation for women advocates in the executive committee and governing council of the Sultanpur Bar Association.
The Supreme Court, through a series of orders, mandated a 30 percent quota for women across all Bar Associations nationwide. In its order dated March 13, 2026, the apex court observed:
“The issue that arises for consideration in this batch of matters pertains to ensuring 30% representation for women lawyers as Office Bearers or Executive Members in every Bar Association, including at Taluka or District levels and specialised bodies like Tax and RERA, as well as High Court Bar Associations.”
Subsequently, on April 16, 2026, the Supreme Court issued a stern warning regarding non-compliance:
“We also deem it necessary to issue a word of caution and a stern warning that wherever the Bar Associations have failed to comply with, or shall be found to have defied, the directions issued hereinabove, such Bar Associations shall be liable to be suspended through a judicial order and fresh elections shall be directed to be conducted.”
Arguments and Proposals
During the hearing, counsel representing the Sultanpur Bar Association informed the High Court that an amendment to the association’s bye-laws had been proposed. Under this proposal, the sole post of Treasurer, two out of four Governing Council seats for advocates with over 15 years of practice, and two out of four Governing Council seats for advocates with less than 15 years of practice were designated to be reserved for women.
The Court’s Analysis
The Division Bench rejected the proposed structure submitted by the Bar Association, holding that confining reservations to specific posts did not fulfill the Supreme Court’s mandate.
Evaluating the proposal, the High Court observed:
“We are of the opinion that this is not adequate representation of women, nor in accordance with the letter and spirit of the orders passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court. There has to be 30% reservation for women across the board i.e. in respect of all the posts.”
Decision and Election Directions
To ensure full compliance, the High Court outlined a specific rotational reservation mechanism across all posts in the Executive Committee of the Sultanpur Bar Association:
- Joint Secretary: Out of the three posts, one post shall be reserved for women.
- Treasurer, General Secretary, and Vice President: These posts are reserved for women in the current election. Thereafter, reservation for these posts will apply by rotation every third year (starting in 2029).
- President and Senior Vice President: These posts will be reserved for women in the next election cycle in 2027, continuing on a rotational basis every third year thereafter (starting in 2030).
Because the election schedule had already been declared, the High Court ordered its postponement to enable fresh nominations under the revised roster. The Returning Officer and the Elder Committee were directed to reschedule the elections accordingly.
The court further specified that if any reserved post remains unfilled, nominations will be made by the Administrative Judge or District Judge in accordance with the Supreme Court’s guidelines.
Case Details
Case Title: Shashi Mishra v. Bar Council Of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. And 2 Others
Case No.: Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No. 646 of 2026
Bench: Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Manjive Shukla
Counsel for Petitioner: Senior Advocate A. M. Tripathi, assisted by Advocate Arvind Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Intervenor: Advocate S. K. Singh
Counsel for Sultanpur Bar Association (Respondent No. 3): Advocate O. P. Tiwari
Counsel for High Court (Respondent No. 2): Advocate Shishir Jain
Counsel for Bar Council of India: Advocate Roshan Babu (holding brief for Advocate Subhash Chandra Pandey)
Date: August 10, 2026
