Allahabad High Court Upholds Bulandshahr Bar Election, Orders Bye-Laws to Ensure 30% Women’s Representation

The petitioner, an Advocate practising at the District Court, Bulandshahr, challenged the election of the executive body of the Civil Bar Association, Bulandshahr, conducted on 16 April 2026 pursuant to an election programme notified on 4 April 2026.

She contended that the election did not provide the 30% representation of women lawyers directed by the Supreme Court in *Deeksha N. Amruthesh v. State of Karnataka*, and sought fresh elections with reservation for women, including reservation of the Treasurer’s post.

The Association had 79 women members, but no woman was elected as an office-bearer.

After the election, on 20 April 2026, the elected body nominated four women Advocates—one as Joint Treasurer and three as Executive Members.

The respondents argued that these nominations fulfilled the Supreme Court’s requirement of 30% representation.

The petitioner disputed the validity of the nominations, contending that the post of Joint Treasurer did not exist and that the nominations were made without jurisdiction.

The writ petition was finally heard on 31 August 2026.

Whether the election of the Civil Bar Association, Bulandshahr, held on 16 April 2026 was invalid for failing to provide 30% representation to women Advocates in the governing or executive body?

Whether the subsequent nomination of four women Advocates by the elected body was legally permissible and sufficient to satisfy the Supreme Court’s directions in *Deeksha N. Amruthesh*?

Whether the entire election was liable to be quashed and fresh elections directed on account of the manner in which the nominations were made?

The Court applied the directions issued by the Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution in *Deeksha N. Amruthesh v. State of Karnataka*, particularly the order dated 13 March 2026 requiring at least 30% representation of women Advocates in the governing or executive bodies of Bar Associations and permitting nominations where women members did not contest.

The Supreme Court’s subsequent order dated 16 April 2026 clarified that the shortfall in representation could be addressed through nominations and directed that such nominations be made by the Administrative or Portfolio Judge of the jurisdictional High Court, in consultation with the District and Sessions Judge, elected office-bearers and senior-most women members of the Bar Association.

The order also warned that Bar Associations failing to comply could face suspension and fresh elections.

The Court further applied the principle that procedural non-compliance must be assessed in light of the object of the directions and the practical consequences of granting relief.

The Court held that the Association ought to have incorporated 30% representation for women when the election programme was notified on 4 April 2026, because the Supreme Court’s order dated 13 March 2026 was already operative and was publicly available; lack of formal communication by the DLSA until 8 April 2026 did not excuse non-compliance.

However, no woman had contested the election, attracting the Supreme Court’s direction that the shortfall could be addressed through nominations.

Although the nominations were made only by the elected office-bearers, rather than through the consultation-based mechanism prescribed on 16 April 2026, the four nominations were made promptly on 20 April 2026 and ensured the presence of women in the elected body.

Considering the peculiar circumstances, the Court concluded that quashing the entire election or ordering a fact-finding inquiry would serve no meaningful purpose.

It instead granted the Association an opportunity to regularise the position by amending its bye-laws and placing the nominations before the competent judicial authorities.

The elected body was directed to amend its bye-laws or Memorandum of Association within one month to provide for 30% representation of women lawyers in all future elections, with an indication of retrospective application to the present election and nominations.

Within the same period, the Association was directed to submit details of the four nominations and the complete 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 of the Association, in accordance with the Supreme Court’s order dated 16 April 2026.

Unless otherwise directed by the Administrative Judge, the elected body and the four nominated women members were permitted to continue functioning.