- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2460 WP No. 201114 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA WRIT PETITION NO.201114 OF 2025 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. APPARAO S/O SANGAPPA PARUTABAD, AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: LEGAL PRACTITIONER KAR NO: 973/1995 R/O: H.NO.11-1776, VIDYA NAGAR, M.S.K. MILL ROAD, KALABURAGI - 585 103. 2. MALLANNA S/O MADAPPA DHANNUR AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: LEGAL PRACTITIONER, KAR NO:2692/2007 R/O: BAR ASSOCIATION CHAMBER NO.7, DISTRICT BAR ASSOCIATION, KALABURAGI. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. BIRADAR KALYANI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE PRESIDENT, KALABURAGI BAR ASSOCIATION HAVING REGISTERED UNDER HYDERABAD SOCIETIES ACT OF 1350 FASLI (1940 AD) DISTRICT COURT PREMISES, BAR ASSOCIATION BUILDING, KALABURAGI. Digitally signed by LUCYGRACE Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2460 WP No. 201114 of 2025 2. THE CHAIRMAN KARNATAKA STATE BAR COUNCIL K.G.I.D. OLD BUILDING, OPP: VIDHAN SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE – 560 001. 3. THE RETURNING OFFICER - 2025-27 KALABURAGI BAR ASSOCIATION DISTRICT COURT PREMISES, ELECTION RETURNING OFFICER, YEAR 2025-27 BAR ASSOCIATION BUILDING DISTRICT COURT PREMISES, KALABURAGI – 585 103. …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE RESOLUTION PASSED BY THE RESPONDENTS THEREBY DECLARING 33% OF RESERVATION FOR WOMEN LEGAL PRACTITIONERS IN BAR ASSOCIATION OF KALABURAGI AND ISSUE WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONERS MEMBERS AS PER ANNEXURE-B DATED 20.03.2025 AND CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO HOLD ELECTIONS FOR OFFICE TERM AS ONE YEAR I.E., 2025-2026 ONLY AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2460 WP No. 201114 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) Heard Sri.Biradar Kalyani learned counsel for the writ petitioners. 2. This writ petition is filed seeking the Court to exercise its power granted under the writ jurisdiction and to quash the resolution that is passed by respondents, i.e., the President of Gulbarga District Bar Association and the Chairman of Karnataka State Bar Council declaring 33% of reservation for women legal practitioners in Bar Association, Kalaburagi. Another relief sought for is to grant a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioners dated 20.03.2025 and consequently, to direct the respondents to hold elections for office term of one year only. 3. Learned counsel for the writ petitioners submits that the petitioners are practicing advocates and members of Gulbarga District Bar Association. Gulbarga Bar - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2460 WP No. 201114 of 2025 Association held a meeting and charted out calendar of events for holding elections for electing the body of members to the Gulbarga Bar Association for the term 2025 to 2027. 4. Learned counsel states that for the past 68 years Gulbarga Bar Association is engaged in achievement of lawful objectives and is dealing with issues concerning legal profession. Learned counsel submits that the term of holding the office was only one year initially. However, by way of amendment to the bye-laws, the said term was enhanced to two years. The said enhancement is against the Code of Conduct and the wishes of Legal Practitioners. Learned counsel states that thousands of Advocates are practicing in the State of Karnataka and the legitimate expectation of the Legal Practitioners is that they would get atleast one opportunity to become a working partner of the Association and serve the legal fraternity. Thus, increasing the term to two years is against wishes of the Legal Practitioners. Learned counsel further submits that - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2460 WP No. 201114 of 2025 505 Members out of approximately 1500 Members gave a representation to cut short the term, but the said representation is not attended to. 5. Learned counsel also states that legal profession has distinct entity. There is separation of powers between Legislature, Executive and Judiciary. No reservation policy is formulated and applied for selecting women as Judges to various High Courts across the Country as well as to the Hon’ble Supreme Court. However, strangely, for electing Members of Gulbarga Bar Association, a reservation policy is adopted and 33% posts of the Executive Committee were reserved for women. This policy of reservation is against the mandate of law and therefore, an order is required to be passed directing the respondents not to apply such policy of reservation to the Executive Committee of the Association so that every one will get equal opportunity. 6. Learned counsel further submits that the voters list is not properly prepared. Learned counsel also - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2460 WP No. 201114 of 2025 contends that each Member who is contesting is spending around twenty five lakhs for getting elected. Most of the contestants are the practicing Advocates dealing with land acquisition matters and criminal cases. They may have such financial capability and capacity to spend that much of amount for elections. However, the other practicing Advocates will not have either such potentiality or caliber to spend the amount and ultimately they will be sufferers. 7. Learned counsel also states that the election process is on and today the voting has commenced. Learned counsel thereby seeks to pass necessary orders and grant urgent relief by disposing this writ petition. 8. As per the submission that is made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, it is clear that the bye- laws were amended by increasing the term of office to two years. The Memorandum of Association of Gulbarga Bar Association filed at Annexure-A clearly reveals the objects of the Association and also the Rules framed regarding Membership, manner of holding General Body Meetings, - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2460 WP No. 201114 of 2025 eligibility to contest elections, the term of office, allocation of posts and allied aspects. Rule 25 which deals with the term of office as per the amendment effected through Special General Body Meetings held on 10.01.2017 and 30.04.2018 is as under :- “25. Term of office : a) The term of office of President, Vide Presidents, General Secretaries, Joint-secretaries and Treasures and Councilors elected at a General Election shall commence from 1st June and expire on 31st May of every 2 year. The term of office of the office bearers and councilors shall be two years. b) The term of office of a person chosen to fill a causal vacancy of President, Vice-presidents, General Secretaries, Joint Secretaries, Treasurers or a Councilors, shall continue so long only as such person whose place he is elected would have been entitled to hold office if the vacancy had not occurred. c) That if any elected for period of two years acts against the interest of the association, or - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2460 WP No. 201114 of 2025 violates the rules of the association he may be removed from the post in the Spl. General Body meeting with 2/3rd majority of members. d) Newly elected officer bearers will assume/Hold office of Association immediately after elections i.e., before commencement of summer vacation or, on or before 30th April of that year, or within a week after the election of that academic year or on last working day of summer vacation. e) Above said article-d inserted in this amendment will comes into effect from the year 2019 elections of Gulbarga Bar Association, Kalaburagi.” The aforementioned Rule makes it clear that since the date of amendment, the term of office of Presidents, Vice Presidents, General Secretaries, Joint Secretaries, Treasurers and Councilors elected at general election is two years. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2460 WP No. 201114 of 2025 9. No material is produced nor any submission is made to the effect that the said Rule was challenged at any time since 2017 till now. 10. Coming to reserving 33% of posts in the Executive Committee for women, learned counsel for the petitioner vigorously argued that such reservation cannot be applied in the judicial process. Learned counsel failed to give any reason as to why such reservation should not be given to women in the body of Executive Committee. Undoubtedly, any Association registered under the Societies Registration Act has got power to make certain Rules and Regulations governing the functioning of the said Association. The Rules and Regulations framed by any Association cannot be disturbed unless and until it is established and proved that such Rules or Regulations are against the public policy or in violation of mandate of law. Atleast convincing material should be produced that such a Rule or Regulation is against the principles of natural justice. The purpose of forming an Association, getting it - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2460 WP No. 201114 of 2025 registered and formulating the Rules and Bye-laws is only to make the Association function as per the requirement for which it came into existence. 11. This Court is not inclined to accept the submission that reserving 33% of the posts in the Executive Committee for women is against the process of administration of Judicial system in the country. The only contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that as such reservation policy for women is not applied for selecting the Judges to the High Courts and to the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the same should not be applied to election of Members to the Executive Committee of Bar Association. However, such submission appears illogical. 12. In the case on hand, this Court does not find any grounds to interfere with the decision taken by the Members of Gulbarga Bar Association to extend the term of office from one year to two years or in reserving posts for women in the Executive Committee. Equally, this Court does not find any grounds whatsoever to exercise the - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2460 WP No. 201114 of 2025 extraordinary writ jurisdiction that is vested upon this Court to stall the election process and to grant the relief claimed. Ultimately the Court holds that the writ petition is devoid of merits. Resultantly, the writ petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (Dr.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE VNR/SN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10 CT:NI