IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH,THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.M. MOHIUDDIN
Padma Rao Putta – Appellant
Versus
The Union Government of India – Respondent
WP 39647/2025
##PAGE1##
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH
AND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN
I.A.No.2 of 2025
in/and
WRIT PETITION No.39647 of 2025
DATE: 31.12.2025
BETWEEN:
Padma Rao Putta
….Petitioner
AND
Union of India and 4 others.
….Respondents
ORDER
Heard Sri Ch. Prabhakar, learned counsel representing Sri. N.
Sreenivasa Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri Narasimha
Sharma, learned Additional Solicitor General of India representing
Sri N.Bhujanga Rao, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India
appearing for respondent No.1; Sri Aadesh Varma, learned counsel
appearing for respondent No.2 and Sri S. Ashok Anand Kumar,
learned Senior Counsel representing Sri J.Manikanta Reddy
appearing for respondent Nos.4 and 5 and perused the record.
2. The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus
declaring the Election Notification dated 20.12.2025 issued by the
##PAGE2##::2::
Bar Council of Telangana, insofar as it fails to provide reservation to
advocates belonging to the Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled
Tribes (STs), as illegal, arbitrary, and violative of constitutional
mandates.
Factual matrix (in brief)
3. The petitioner, an advocate by profession and the President of
a lawyers’ organization i.e, National Samatha Lawyers Organization,
had earlier approached this Court by filing W.P.No.34809 of 2025
seeking reliefs of a similar nature. The said writ petition was
disposed of vide order dated 08.12.2025, observing that the Bar
Council of India has already seized of the petitioner’s representation
and directing that an informed decision be taken thereon within a
reasonable time.
4. Notwithstanding the aforesaid order, the respondent No.4 has
issued the impugned Election notification dated 20.12.2025,
notifying elections to the State Bar Council to be held on 30.01.2026.
The issuance of the said notification is stated to be in compliance
with the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
M. Varadhan v. Union of India and another1
5. In the said order, the Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down a
comprehensive mechanism and strict timelines for the conduct of
1
W.P.(Civil) No. 1319 of 2023 and batch, dated 18.11.2025.
##PAGE3##::3::
elections to various State Bar Councils, including the constitution of
High-Powered Election Committees and a Supervisory Committee.
Insofar as the State of Telangana is concerned, the election process
is required to be conducted under the supervision of the High-
Powered Election Committee – Phase I, with a mandate to complete
the entire election process on or before 31.01.2026.
6. Aggrieved by the non-provision of reservation for advocates
belonging to the SCs and STs in the impugned Election notification,
the petitioner has instituted the present writ petition, along with an
interlocutory application vide I.A.No.2 of 2025, seeking interim
directions to provide reservation to the extent of 15% for Scheduled
Castes and 7% for Scheduled Tribes in the ongoing election process.
Contentions of the petitioner
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner raised the following
contentions:
i. That reservation in favour of advocates belonging to the SCs
and STs is constitutionally envisaged under Articles 14, 15, 16,
341 and 342 of the Constitution of India, read with the
provisions of the Representation of the People Acts, 1950 and
1951. It is urged that the Bar Council, being a statutory and
representative body, is required to mirror social diversity and
##PAGE4##::4::
ensure inclusive and equitable participation of all sections of
the legal fraternity.
ii. That the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
merely prescribe a time-bound framework for completion of the
election process and do not, either expressly or by necessary
implication, prohibit the provision of reservation. According to
the petitioner, the absence of any such prohibition obligates
the respondents to implement reservation even at the present
stage.
iii. That th
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.