Padma Rao Putta v. Legislature Department

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI CH.PRABHAKAR, REp. FOR SRI N.SREENIVASA YADAV counsel for the Respondent No.1: sRl NARASIMHA SHARMA, ADDL. SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA, REP. SRI N.BHUJANGA RAO, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA l l IN THE HIGH COT'RT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT ITTDERABAD TTIT HON'BLE THE CHIEF JI'STICE SRI APARESH KT'MAR SINGH AND THE HON'BLE SRI JTISTICE G.M.MOHIT'DDIN I.A.No.2 of 2o.25 !4&nd WRIT PETITION No.39647 of 2O25 DATE: g1.L2.2O2]c BETIIIEEN: Padma Rao Putta Union of India and 4 others. AND onlDER ....Petitioner ....Respondents Heard Sri Ch. Prabhakar, learned counsel representing Sri. N. Sreenivasa Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri Narasimha Sharrna, learned Adclitional Solicitor General of India representing Sri N.Bhujanga Rao, learned Depufy 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 responclent Nos.4 ancl 5 and perused the record.

2. The present V/rit Petition is liled under Article 226 of the constitution of India seeking issuance of a u,rit of mand.rzmus declaring the Election Notification dated 20.12.2025 issued by the ..).. 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 violatitre of constitutional mandates. Factual matrix lin 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 uide order dated 08.12.2025, observing that the Bar Council of tndia 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 30.0L.2O26. The issuance of the said notification is stated to be in compliance with the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M. Varad.ho,n a, Union of India. and anotherl.

5. In the said order, the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down a comprehensive mechanism and strict timelines for the conduct of t W.e.1ciril) No. 1319 of 2O23 and batch, dated ts.tt.2O2S \ \ ::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.O 1.2026. 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 uide I.A.No.2 of 2025, seeking interim directions to provide reservation to the extent of 15% for Scheduled castes and 7oh for Scheduled rribes in the ongoing election process. Contentions of the petitioner

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner raised the following contentions: That reservation in favour of advocates belonging to the SCs and STs is constitutionally envisaged under Articles 14, 15, 16, 34L 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 I ii4i2 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 expre:isly 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 the omission to provide reservation to SCs and STs in the impugned Election process results in denial of substantive equality and is violative of the principles of natural justice, rendering the impugned action arbitrary and unconstitutional. Cotrtentions of the resPondents

8. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondent No.4 raised the following contentions hereunder: i. That the Election process is being conducted strictly in accord.ance with, and under the direct supervision and control of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is submitted that any interference by this Court at this stage would amount to judicial indiscipline and would have the effect of unsettling the time schedule and framework expressly lixed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. \,\ \, \ ;, ..S.. That the order dated 18.11 .2025 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court constitutes a complete and self-contained code governing the conduct of elections to the State Bar Councils. The said order expressly provides for reservation to the extent of 2oo/o in favour of women advocates and is conspicuously silent with regard to reservation for SCs and STs. According to the respondents, such silence must be construed as a conscious and deliberate omission, leaving no scope for supplementation by this Court.

111. That any grievance pertaining to the conduct of elections, including issues relating to reservation, falls within the exclusive domain of the High-Powered Election Committee and the Supervisory Committee constituted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is urged that the petitioner ought to have availed the remedies before the said Committees and that the present writ petition is, therefore, not maintainable. 1V That the present writ petition constitutes an abuse of the process of Court, inasmuch as an identical issue had earlier been raised by the petitioner in W.P.No.348O9 of 2.025, which stood disposed of with a direction to the Bar Council of India to consider the petitioner's representation, and the petitioner is now seeking to reagitate the same cause of action. 9 We have taken note of the respective contentions urged. ::6:: Analvsis and finding

10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in exercise of its plenary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, has issued a comprehensive, structured and time-bound scheme governing the conduct of elections to the State Bar Councils. The said scheme provides for the constitution of High-Powered Election Committees and a Supervisory Committee, prescribes specific timelines for each stage of the election process, earmarks 20% of the seats in favour of women advocates, and establishes an inbuilt grievance-redressal mechanism. The scheme further places an express embargo on civil courts and High Courts from entertaining any challenge to decisions taken by the Supervisory Committee. In this regard, Para 20 of the said order is extracted hereunder for ready reference:

20. Ang person uho is aggrieued by the decision of the High-Powered Election Committee shall be at liberty to approach the High-Powered Superuisory Committee. The decision taken bg the Superuisory Committee shall be final. No ciuil courT or High Court shall entertain ang petition(s) against such decision.

11. It is to be noted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has fully and conclusively devised a special mechanism for adjudication of all disputes arising out of the Election process. In such circumstances, this Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, should not entertain a parallel challenge to the very same Election process. Any such exercise would undermine the binding scheme framed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. \ \ \ \ ..n.. I,2. The contention of the petitioner that reservation for SCs and STs is constitutionally mandated in Elections to State Bar Councils is without any basis. Bar Councils are statutory bodies constituted under the Advocates Act, 196r, primarily entrusted with regulatory, disciplinary and educational functions relating to the legal profession, they do not partake the character of legislative bodies or institutions of local self-government. There is no constitutional or statutory mandate providing for reservation in elections to such professional bodies.

13. Articles 341 and 342 of the constitution relied upon by the petitioner to claim reservation for SCs and STs in the Elections to the Bar council, merely empower the identification of SCs and STs and do not, by themselves, confer a right to reservation in every elective or representative body. L4. The scheme framed by the Hon'ble supreme court provides a complete and eflicacious remedy for election-related grievarrces through the High-p'wered Election committee and the Supervisory committee, whose decision is finar. The petitioner has admittedry not availed of the said remedy. In view of the existence of such a court_ mandated alternative mechanism, this court would ordinarily decline to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. 15. It is relevant to note that the Election process having already commenced and reached an advanced stage, introduction of / / 1l I reservation at this juncture would require re-notification, delimitation of reserved seats and reopening of nominations, all of which would inevitably derail the strict timelines fixed by the Hon'lcle Supreme Court. The petitioner, despite having earlier approached this Court, has chosen to assail the Election process only after issuance of the notification, thereby contributing to delay and laches. The relief sought is, therefore, not only legally untenable but also practically unworkable at this stage. Conclusion

16. While the objective of social justice and inclusive representation is of undoubted significance, this Court is of the considered view that the present writ petition is not maintainable, inasmuch as the Hon'ble Supreme Court has exclusively entrusted the conduct of elections and election-related grievance redressal to specially constituted Committees; the petitioner has an eflicacious alternative remedy before such Committees; and any interference by this Court would amount to impermissible intrusion into the binding orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the ongoing election process. L7. Accordingly, the writ Petition and I.A.No.2 of 2025 are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. \ \ ..o.. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stand closed. To, //TRUE COPYII SD/. HAVI ISTRAR SECTION OFFICER

1. One CC to SRt N.SREENTVASA YADAV, 2. One CC to SRI AADESH VARMA, Advocate 3. One CC to SRt J.MANTKANTA REDDy, Advocate 4. one cc to SRr N.BHUJANGA B4g, DEpury solrcrroR GENERAL oF 5. Two CD Copies tNDtA, Hish court for the staie oi i;dn;;#t hil"r"bad [opUC] I BSR 1" HIGH COURT DATED: 31 11212025 ORDER l.A.No.2 of 2025 IN/AND WP.No.39647 of 2025 \;t-, giA,{ t ., 06 ttB 2st6 * * i DISMISSING THE I.A. & WRIT PETITION, WITH UT COSTS o