Padma Rao Putta v. The Union Government of lndia

The Secretary, Bar Council of Telangana, High Court Buildings, at Hyderabad ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 ot the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the. High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS to declaring the action of the respondents in failing to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 1 111112025 tor allocation of the seats to the SCs and STs candidates for reservation as per the representation of the people Act, 1950 and representation of the people Act, 1951 basing on the constitution of lndia for contesting the SCs and STs candidates into the Bar council Elections scheduled to be held in the year 2026 or thereafter is illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law violation of principles of natural justice and blatant violation of the constitution as well as the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of lndia and cons,: luently direct the respondents to consider the representative of the petitioner ci ted 1111112025. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the c i cumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents No.4 and 5 to allocate the sea:r to the SC & ST candidates for reservation as per the representation of the p r ople Act, '1950 and representation of the people Act 1951 basing on the cons itution of lndia for ensuing elections of the Bar Council of State of Telanga r r Scheduled to be conducted in the year 2026 or thereafter until finalization of tl' e reservation to the SC & ST Candidates , pending disposal of the main writ petiti, n. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI N.SREENIVASA YADAV Counsel forthe Respondent No.1: SRI N.BHUJANGA RAO, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GEi ERAL OF INDIA Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI AADESH VARMA Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI S.ASHOK ANAND K" MAR, Sr. COUNSEL Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI J.MANIKANTA REDI) / The Court made the following: ORDER - ..- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.348O9 OF 2025 DATE: 08.12.2025 Between: Padma Rao Putta The Ur-rion Government of India & Others AND ORDER: ...Petitioner ...Respondents This Writ Petition is filed with the following relief: "...pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS to cleclaring the action of the rcspondents in farling to consider the rcprcscnration of the petitioner dated 1l llll2025 for allocation o[ the scats to the SCs ald STs candidates for resen'ation as per the representation of the people Act, 1950 and representation of the people Act, 1951 basing on the constitution of India for contesting the SCs and STs candidates into the Bar Council Elections scheduled to be held in the year 2026 or thereafter is illegal, arbitrary, contrary to larv violation ol principles of natural justice and blatant violation of the constitution as well as the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to consider the representative of the petitioncr dared I | 111/2025 and pass......."

2. Heard Mr. N Sreenivasa Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Aadesh Varma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2, Sri S. Ashok Anand I(umar, IearneC" ) \ -- .=- .r - Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of respot r, lent No.3 ald Sri J. Manikanta Reddy, learned counsel appeal'i rg on behalf of respondent No..1

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner srr;mits that a reprcsentation dated ll.ll.2025 was submitr t d to the Bar Council of Telangana, seeking allocation of s I rts lor SC/ ST candidates by u'a1'of reservation in the forthcomi rg Bar Council Elections scheduled to bc held in 2026. He furtl r r submits that the llon'ble Strprcme Court, in W.P. No. 58l of -l )24, vide order dated 04.12.2025, directed the Bar Council of Irr lia to consider providing 3O(Zr representation to women me I l>ers in their respective councils. [n vier.r, of the constitutio:t ti mandate to ensure rcservaLion lor SC/ST communities, the petitioner contends that similar consideration ought to I e extended to them as well. Accordingly, he prays that approl) iate directions be issued to the respondents

4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for res rondent No. 3 submits that the petitioner's representation, daL .d 1 1. 1 1.2025, was duly forwarded by the Bar Council of Telanp lna to the Bar Cour-rci1 of India on 13.11.2025, '"vith a request o consider the - -) matter and take necessary action. The issue is presently under consideration before the Bar Council of India.

5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2/Bar council of India submits that the representation received from the Bar Council of Telangana involves a policy decision, which must be placed before the General Council for deliberation. He further submits that appropriate steps are being taken in this regard and that a reasonable period of time may be required to arrive at a decision.

6. I have carefully perused the material on record.

7. As per the submissions made by the learned counsel for respondents'No. 2 and 3, it is evident that the representation of the petitioner has already been taken on record by the Bar Council of Telangana and subsequently forwarded to the Bar Council of India for appropriate consideration. It is further submitted that the Bar Council of India is presently seized of the matter and that the same is under active examination at the national level.

8. Ho',vever, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in W.p. (Civil) I -I Nos. 58 1 of 2024 and 106O of 2025 - Yogamaga 1t G. u- Union of India & Others, while dealing with the questi: I of adequate representation of r.r'omen it-r State Bar Cor-tl-r: ls, issued an interim direction emphasizing the importance ol rlclusivity and diversity in legal institutions. The relevant portiol of the interim order reads as follows: "We expcct that the Bar Council of IndicL rt'll constnte the existinq RuLes/ Frameuork in such a mant 1 r as to ensure that 3091, of the seats in each State Bar Cou;:il are occupied bg utomen members."

9. This direction reflects the broader comm jtnt :nt to ensuring equitable participation and representation vrith n llrofessional bodies, consistent with the principles enshrinerl under Articles 14, 15(3), and 16(4) of the Constitution of India, vhich empower the State and its instrumentalities to take affirrr ative measures to secure representation for socialiy disadvantzLgtr I groups.

10. In light of these observations, and having re 3ard to the fact that the Bar Council of India is already : tnsidering the petitioner's representation on similar iines, this Court is of the opinion that no further direction is u,arrante , J at this stage, except to observe that thc Bar Council of I r clia sha1l duly ( \ ___7/ 5 consider the petitioner's representation in accordance with law, keeping in view the constitutional mandate of equality and social justice, ald the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the alorementioned matter

11. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of, with the expectation that the Bar Council of India will take an informed and reasoned decision within a reasonable time. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. SD/.K.BHAVANI SWAMY ASSISTANT R GISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The under secretary, Law and Legislature Department, central Secretariat at New Delhi, Union Government of lndia.

2.TheChairman,BarCounciloflndia'supremeCourtPremises,NewDelhi. 3. The Registrar Administration, Supreme Court of lndia, New Delhi' Delhi' 4. The Chairman, Bar Council of Telangana, High Court Buildings at Hyderabad' 5. The Secretary, Bar Council of Telangana, High Court Buildings' at Hyderabad.

6. One CC to SRI N.SREENIVASA YADAV, Advocate [OPUC] 7. One CC to SRI AADESH VARMA, Advocate [OPUC] B. One CC to SRI S.ASHOK ANAND KUMAR, Advocate [OPUC] 9. One CC to SRI J.MANIKANTA REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] 1O.One CC toSRl N.BHUJANGA RAO, DEPUTY.SOLICITOR GENERAL OF '" ir.irirn, Hidr, Court ior the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OPUC]

11.Two CD CoPies BSR HIGH COURT DATED: 0811212025 '-.) o LL -'t {' \_ ;\,, '1. ,, !jl ::.i/ lY'! ,l ''/ t. I s' & b ) + ,c a:l ORDER WP.No.34809 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS \)