Women’s Reservation Bill Failure And Lucknow Bar Association Case
It really disappointed me most extremely that the 33% reservation of seats for women in the Lower House of Parliament that is Lok Sabha and State Assemblies for women failed to muster majority after Centre could not secure the votes that were needed for its passage in the Lok Sabha on April 17, 2026.
But what has uplifted my morale now is to note that while displaying tremendous moral courage and striking the right chord, the Division Bench of Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Rajan Roy and Hon’ble Mr Justice Manjive Shukla in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled Soni Sharma, Advocate vs. Lucknow Bar Association, Lucknow Thru Chairman Elders Committee- Sri Jai Singh And Ors. in Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No. - 318 of 2026 and cited in Neutral Citation No.: 2026:AHC-LKO:26714-DB 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. It must be noted here that the Division Bench underscored most explicitly that Supreme Court’s directions under Article 142 of the Constitution are binding and cannot be ignored.
Key Legal Highlights
- 33% Women Reservation Bill failed in Lok Sabha on April 17, 2026.
- Allahabad High Court directed compliance with 30% reservation in Bar Associations.
- Supreme Court directions under Article 142 are binding.
- Lucknow Bar Association elections must be rescheduled.
Impact On Bar Associations In Uttar Pradesh
It also merits noting that 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. This is what has given maximum smile to my face and helped in controlling my despair in failure of Women’s Reservation Bill to get passed in Parliament. There can be just no gainsaying that the underrepresentation of women in bar bodies is a “deeply entrenched imbalance” in the legal profession must be definitely set right now!
Broader Implications
- Applies to all Bar Associations in Uttar Pradesh.
- Ensures gender representation in legal institutions.
- Addresses systemic imbalance in the legal profession.
Background Of Public Interest Litigation (PIL)
Interestingly enough, the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was filed by Soni Sharma who is an advocate and who challenged the election schedule that was notified by the Lucknow Bar Association on March 10, 2026. It merits mentioning that 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.). It also merits mentioning that the Division Bench disposed of the PIL at the admission stage itself and directed the Lucknow Bar Association to reschedule the Bar elections to its Executive Body/Governing Council.
Case Details
| Particulars | Details |
|---|---|
| Case Title | Soni Sharma, Advocate vs. Lucknow Bar Association |
| Case Type | Public Interest Litigation (PIL) |
| Case Number | PIL No. - 318 of 2026 |
| Neutral Citation | 2026:AHC-LKO:26714-DB |
| Key Issue | 30% Reservation For Women In Bar Associations |
Court Proceedings And Observations
At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by the Division Bench of Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Rajan Roy and Hon’ble Mr Justice Manjive Shukla sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that, “Vakalatnama filed today by Ms. Priya Singh and Mr. Mayank Pandey, Advocates on behalf of respondent No.1 is taken on record.”
As we see, the Division Bench then states in para 2 that, “Affidavit of service and application for deleting respondent No.4 and 5 from memo of writ petition filed today by Shri Rohit Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioner and application for intervention filed on behalf of Shri Alok Tiwari, Advocate by Shri G.L. Yadav are taken on record.”
Needless to say, the Division Bench then specifies in para 3 stating that, “Heard Km. Vishwa Mohini and Shri Rohit Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Shri G.L. Yadav, Advocate who has filed an application for intervention on behalf of Shri Alok Tiwari, Advocate who is a member of the Lucknow Bar Association, Shri Sharad Pathak, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Mayank Pandey, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 i.e. Lucknow Bar Association, Lucknow, Shri Shushil Kumar Singh a member of the Bar. Respondents no. 4 and 5 have been deleted.”
Supreme Court Directions On Women Reservation In Bar Associations
Binding Nature Of Supreme Court Directions
While citing the relevant and recent case law, the Division Bench then observes in para 4 that, “It is not in dispute that there is a direction by Hon'ble the Supreme Court under which 30% of posts in the Bar Associations whether it be Executive Body or Governing Council has to be reserved for women. The directions have been issued under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. These directions are binding on all Bar Associations, who are obliged to provide the aforesaid reservation subject to any further orders being passed in this regard by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in proceedings bearing SLP (C) No.1404 of 2025 (Deeksha N Amruthesh vs. State of Karnataka & Ors.) which are still pending. 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.”
Key Constitutional Provisions Referred
| Provision | Description |
|---|---|
| Article 142 | Empowers the Supreme Court to pass orders necessary for complete justice. |
| Article 144 | Mandates all authorities to act in aid of the Supreme Court. |
Background Of Public Interest Litigation
To put things in perspective, the Division Bench envisages in para 5 that, “The cause of action for filing this Public Interest Litigation is the ensuing elections to the Governing Council/Executive Body of the Lucknow Bar Association at Lucknow which is a Bar annexed to the District Court, Lucknow and non-compliance of the aforesaid dictum of the Supreme Court of India, although, the schedule of election was notified subsequent to the orders being passed by Hon’ble the Supreme Court. The orders were passed in February, 2026 and prior to it, whereas the notification of schedule of election was issued by the respondent No.1 on 10.03.2026 but without taking into consideration the orders of the Supreme Court of India.”
Arguments Presented By Respondent
As it turned out, the Division Bench enunciates in para 6 that, “On being confronted, Shri Sharad Pathak, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 submitted that the elections are being held in pursuance to an order passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court on 16.02.2026 in Writ C No.1109 of 2026 (Beerendra Mishra Saurabh and others vs. Bar Council of U.P. and Others), according to which, the elections have to be completed within ten weeks from the said date, however, on being asked as to whether the order of the Coordinate Bench dated 10.02.2026 absolves the respondent No.1, which was also an opposite party in the said writ petition from complying the orders of the Supreme Court of India and in fact, whether it could by any stretch of imagination be understood as doing so, he fairly submitted that it did not and could not. He then submitted, in that eventuality, the elections have to be rescheduled.”
Court Observation On Non-Compliance
Be it noted, the Division Bench notes in para 7 that, “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.”
Direction To Reschedule Elections
It would be instructive to note that the Division Bench then hastens to add in para 8 noting that, “We, therefore, direct the respondent No.1 to reschedule the elections to its Executive Body/Governing Council keeping in mind the orders passed by the Supreme Court of India in SLP (C) No.1404 of 2025 and from the date of fresh notification for the said elections they will be completed keeping in mind the timeline prescribed by the Coordinate Bench in the order dated 16.02.2026.”
Timeline For Fresh Notification
Do also note, the Division Bench notes in para 9 that, “At this stage, Shri Pathak says that notification for rescheduled elections will be issued within 24 hours.”
Bar Members' Submissions
Do further note, the Division Bench then notes in para 10 that, “Shri S.K. Singh, learned member of the Bar has also contended that the orders of Hon'ble the Supreme Court have to be complied in letter and spirit by all the Bar associations in the State of Uttar Pradesh.”
Applicability To Other Bar Associations
Quite significantly, it is worth noting that the Division Bench notes in para 11 that, “So far as this Public Interest Litigation is concerned, it relates to the ensuing elections to the Lucknow Bar Association. As regards, the other Bar associations, they are also bound by the dictum of Hon’ble the Supreme Court as and when any cause of action arises where any such Bar association are not following the dictum of Hon’ble the Supreme Court then remedy as prescribed under the law can be availed.”
Key Takeaways
- 30% reservation for women in Bar Associations is mandatory.
- Supreme Court directions under Article 142 are binding.
- All authorities must comply as per Article 144.
- Non-compliance can lead to rescheduling of elections.
- The ruling applies to all Bar Associations across Uttar Pradesh.
Cornerstone Of The Judgment
Most significantly, the Division Bench encapsulates in para 12 what constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgment postulating precisely that, “As regards the contention of Shri G.L. Yadav that there are only 210 women members in the Lucknow Bar Association, therefore, prescription of 30% reservation for women is not justified, firstly, we do not find any such material having been annexed with the application for intervention to establish that there are only 210 members, 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. We do not find any merit in the contention of intervenor.” :contentReference[oaicite:0]{index=0}
Court Directions And Findings
Directions In Para 13
Objectively speaking, the Division Bench then directs and holds in para 13 that, “We, dispose of this petition at the admission stage itself as this is hardly a case where any counter affidavit is required from any of the contesting parties especially in view of what has been stated by learned Counsel for respondent No.1 and the fact that rest of the respondents are the High Court and District & Sessions Judge, Lucknow. The rescheduling of the elections shall take place positively within one week from today. The application for intervention is also disposed of.”
Final Direction In Para 14
Finally, the Division Bench then concludes by directing and holding in para 14 that, “A copy of this judgment be forwarded to District and Sessions Judge, Lucknow.”
Analysis Of Women Representation In Bar Bodies
By any reckoning, I really just don’t see prima facie any single bona fide reason as to why inspite of women’s representation which is sorely lacking in the different courts in our country especially in our district courts with High Courts and Supreme Court also faring not very well on this count which is definitely a matter of grave concern which makes it all the more imperative to ensure that they be provided with at least 30 percent reservations in key posts in different Bars all across the nation.
This is why this latest Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court ruling has come as a shot in the arm of all those who are proponents of 30% reservation of women in bar bodies all across Uttar Pradesh! It goes without saying that this has also been their long standing, most legitimate and so also most compelling demand also which most unfortunately has not been fulfilled since a very long time. But now finally light is dawning!
Need For At Least 30% Reservation
At the risk of repetition, it must be said that there can definitely be just no gainsaying that the time is ripe now to set in motion at least 30% reservation in bar bodies in all our courts in India to ensure that their voice gets due representation and is not muffled because of complete lack of representation in key position in bar bodies in all the courts in our country which as we all know is dominated by men only and this must change at least now when we are standing at doorsteps of 80th year of independence!
I am palpably at a complete loss to comprehend that why can’t women reservation be made strictly at least 30% after nearly 80 years of independence which really makes me hang my head in shame! This definitely deserves to be done at the earliest as it brooks no more delay any longer now!
Suggested Reservation Framework
| Aspect | Recommendation |
|---|---|
| Reservation Percentage | At least 30% for women |
| Key Posts | President, General Secretary, etc. |
| Implementation Method | Every alternate year |
| Nature | Not permanent to ensure fairness |
I most strongly feel that reservation for key posts for women like President, General Secretary etc should be made every alternate year but definitely not permanent as that would tantamount to grave injustice for men by closing doors of prestigious posts permanently which for sure definitely cannot be justified at all under any circumstances from any angle but reserving it for an year for women every alternate year is a far better feasible proposition to which men also should be willing to accommodate! There can definitely be just no denying or disputing it!
Importance Of Women Leadership In Legal System
- Better communication with women litigants
- Increased confidence among women lawyers
- Improved gender representation in leadership
- Balanced and inclusive legal environment
I have just no hesitation of any kind to concede that a woman litigant who has gone through some crime by a men would be in a far better position to explain and confide it to women sitting in a position of prominence like President or General Secretary than a men to whom she would be most hesitant as we see also in court rooms.
Apart from this, if more women are appointed to such key positions then their confidence level would enhance immensely and this will enable them to match shoulder to shoulder with men in all respects without feeling depressed of being unrepresented as we see presently which must change as change is the law of progress.
Even former PM late Dr Manmohan Singh had once very famously rightly said that, “No one can stop an idea whose time has come.”
Final Conclusion
No doubt, the time is ripe now to usher in the change in this regard by most promptly ensuring that women must now get at least 33% reservation in bar bodies in all our courts as much water has already flown under the bridge. It definitely brooks no more delay any longer now! The earlier this is done, the better it shall be! No denying or disputing it!
Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col (Retd) BPS Sirohi, A - 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh.
