Back
Allahabad HC Upholds Bulandshahr Bar Elections, Orders 30% Women Representation in
The has declined to quash the 2025-26 elections of the , despite finding that the initial election process did not provide for the mandatory 30% representation of women lawyers as directed by the . The Division Bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Kshitij Shailendra instead directed the Bar Association to amend its for future elections and allowed the nominated women advocates to continue in their posts.
Background: The Fight for 30%
The was filed by , an advocate practicing in , challenging the entire election of the executive body for the year 2025-26. The election was notified on , and held on . The voter list included 79 women lawyers among 387 ordinary members and 108 life members. Not a single woman was elected as an office bearer.
The petitioner relied on the ’s landmark order dated , in , which directed all High Courts to ensure that at least 30% of the members of the governing or executive body of every Bar Association are women. The order also authorized District Judges to nominate women members where they did not contest.
Arguments: Awareness and Compliance
The respondents argued that they only became aware of the ’s order on , after the election process had already been notified. They further pointed out that on —just four days after the election—the elected body nominated four women advocates: one as Joint Treasurer and three as Executive Members. They claimed this fulfilled the 30% requirement.
The petitioner countered that the nominations were illegal because no post of Joint Treasurer existed and all 12 elected posts were filled by men. Adding four nominated women over the strength of 12, making it 16, did not comply with the direction to provide 30% within the elected posts.
Court’s Reasoning: A Pragmatic Approach
The High Court rejected the respondents’ claim of ignorance, observing that “the respondents, being an association of lawyers, are supposed to be aware of the orders of the Hon’ble … the order of Hon’ble being in public domain, its ignorance cannot be accepted.”
However, the Court noted that the itself had modified its order on (the very day of the election) to clarify that where women advocates do not contest, “the shortfall in representation shall be ensured through nominations.” Since no woman lawyer had filed nomination papers, the Court held that the nomination clause was attracted and the subsequent nominations were not illegal .
The Bench also acknowledged that the nominations were made by the elected body alone, not through the procedure prescribed in the April 16 order (involving the Administrative Judge, District Judge, and senior women members). Nevertheless, the Court found that quashing the entire election would serve no meaningful purpose.
Key Observation: “30% of 16 (12+4) comes to 4.8 and, therefore, inclusion of four women Advocates in the elected body, by way of prompt nomination, fulfills the purpose.”
Another Key Observation: “To direct an inquiry in this matter, in our opinion, would invite wastage of scarce administrative resources of the justice delivery system without any corresponding advancement of the cause of justice.”
Decision: Directions for the Future
The Court disposed of the PIL with the following directions:
- The elected body must amend its or within one month to provide for 30% representation of women lawyers in all future elections.
- Within the same period, the Bar Association must send details of the nominations and election proceedings to the Administrative Judge of District Bulandshahr, in consultation with the District and Sessions Judge, elected office bearers, and the senior-most woman member.
- Unless the Administrative Judge orders otherwise, the April 16 election and April 20 nominations will remain intact, and the elected body along with the nominated women members will continue to function.
The Court clarified that no further fact-finding exercise by the Registrar General was required at this stage, but left it open for future breaches.
The decision strikes a balance between enforcing the ’s mandate for gender representation and avoiding disruption of the Bar Association’s functioning. It underscores the need for proactive compliance by Bar Associations and provides a clear roadmap for institutionalizing women’s representation in bar leadership.
