The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court has directed the Lucknow Bar Association (LBA) to reschedule its upcoming elections to ensure compliance with the Supreme Court’s mandate of 30% reservation for women in Bar Association posts. The Division Bench, comprising Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Manjive Shukla, emphasized that the Supreme Court’s directions under Article 142 of the Constitution are binding and cannot be ignored.
Background
The Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was filed by Soni Sharma, an advocate, challenging the election schedule notified by the Lucknow Bar Association on March 10, 2026. The petitioner contended that the notification failed to incorporate the 30% reservation for women in the Executive Body/Governing Council, as mandated by the Supreme Court in February 2026. This mandate was issued in the ongoing proceedings of SLP (C) No. 1404 of 2025 (Deeksha N Amruthesh vs. State of Karnataka & Ors.).
Arguments of the Parties
The petitioner argued that despite the Supreme Court’s clear dictum, the LBA issued an election schedule without making provisions for the required reservation.
In response, Shri Sharad Pathak, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Lucknow Bar Association, submitted that the elections were being conducted following an order passed by a Coordinate Bench of the High Court on February 16, 2026, in Writ C No. 1109 of 2026 (Beerendra Mishra Saurabh and others vs. Bar Council of U.P. and Others). That order required the election process to be completed within ten weeks.
However, when questioned by the Court whether the Coordinate Bench’s order absolved the Association from complying with the Supreme Court’s directions, the Senior Counsel “fairly submitted that it did not and could not.” He further stated that in light of this eventuality, the elections would need to be rescheduled.
An intervention application was also filed by Shri G.L. Yadav on behalf of Shri Alok Tiwari, arguing that the 30% reservation was not justified as there are only 210 women members in the Lucknow Bar Association.
Court’s Analysis
The Court noted that there is no dispute regarding the Supreme Court’s direction that 30% of posts in Bar Associations must be reserved for women. The Bench highlighted that these directions, issued under Article 142, are binding on all Bar Associations.
“Article 144 of the Constitution of India enjoins all authorities, civil and judicial, in the territory of India to act in aid of the Supreme Court,” the Bench observed.
Regarding the conflict between the High Court’s timeline and the Supreme Court’s mandate, the Court stated:
“Be that as it may, if the elections are required to be rescheduled then it will certainly have to be rescheduled because non compliance of the orders of the Supreme Court of India passed under Article 142 of the Constitution of India cannot be countenanced in any eventuality.”
Addressing the intervenor’s objection regarding the low number of women members, the Court found no merit in the argument, stating:
“Secondly, even otherwise, the percentage of reservation has not been fixed by us but by Hon’ble the Supreme Court, therefore, we cannot possibly modify the same. We are bound by orders passed by Hon’ble the Supreme Court just as the Bar Associations are bound.”
Decision
The Court disposed of the PIL at the admission stage and directed the Lucknow Bar Association to reschedule the elections to its Executive Body/Governing Council.
The Court ordered:
- The respondent No.1 (LBA) must reschedule the elections keeping in mind the Supreme Court’s orders in SLP (C) No. 1404 of 2025.
- The rescheduled process must be completed following the timeline prescribed by the Coordinate Bench, starting from the date of the fresh notification.
- The rescheduling must take place positively within one week from the date of the judgment.
The Court further clarified that while this PIL specifically concerned the Lucknow Bar Association, all other Bar Associations in the State of Uttar Pradesh are equally bound by the Supreme Court’s dictum as and when election causes arise.
Appearance of Counsels
In the present matter, the petitioner was represented by counsels Shri Rohit Mishra and Km. Vishwa Mohini.
For the respondents, the following counsels appeared:
- Shri Durgesh Kumar Shukla and Shri Shishir Jain (Counsel for Respondents).
- Shri Sharad Pathak, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Shri Mayank Pandey and Ms. Priya Singh, appeared on behalf of respondent No. 1 (Lucknow Bar Association).
- Shri G.L. Yadav, Advocate, appeared for the intervenor, Shri Alok Tiwari.
- Shri Shushil Kumar Singh, a member of the Bar, also addressed the Court.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Soni Sharma, Advocate vs. Lucknow Bar Association, Lucknow Thru Chairman Elders Committee- Sri Jai Singh And Ors.
- Case No.: PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. – 318 of 2026
- Bench: Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Manjive Shukla
- Date: April 17, 2026
