Smt. Mohanakumari K. R. vs. State of Karnataka (2025) 

The Karnataka High Court has allowed the writ petition in the Smt. Mohanakumari K.R. vs. State of Karnataka (2025). The High Court has enforced the Supreme Court’s directive, which breaks down the perception of the ‘old-men club’. The High Court has shown strong support in creating reforms in relation to structural gender within the legal professional bodies. 

Brief details of Smt. Mohanakumari K. R. vs. State of Karnataka (2025)

Name of the CaseSmt. Mohanakumari K. R. vs. State of Karnataka
Case NumberWP 8186/2025 (KAHC010192232025)






Parties of the Case		Petitioner – Smt. Mohanakumari K RSevapriya J.S.Katyayani H.B.RekharajShahjabi.M.Shwetha M.S.Suma K.M.Kruthika B.K.
Respondent – State Of KarnatakaThe Principal SecretaryRegistrarKarnataka State Bar CouncilJoint Registrar Of Cooperative SocietiesTumakuru District Advocates Association
Equivalent CitationsWRIT PETITION NO. 8186 OF 2025 (GM-KSR)
Type of the CaseWrit Petition 
CourtKarnataka High Court
Statutes, Provisions, Judgements Involved In the CaseMs. Deeksha N. Amruthesh vs. State Of Karnataka (2025)Article 14 of the Indian ConstitutionArticle 15 of the Indian ConstitutionArticle 142 of the Indian Constitution 
BenchM.Nagaprasanna
Judgement Date 24/3/2025

Genesis of the dispute

The writ petition is filed by eight women advocates who are practising in Tumkur District. These female advocates are also members of Tumkur District Bar Association. The schedule of the upcoming 2025-2026 and 2026-2027 was announced by the Tumkur District Bar Association on 14th March, 2025. The notification stated that the nominations were to be filed between 22nd and 25th March, 2025. 

The petitioners, on 19th March, 2025, filed the writ petition asking to implement the 33 percent reservation for women in elections. There are 1200 voters in the Tumkur District Bar Association, of which 230 were females. 

The female advocates (petitioners) had written a letter to the President of the Bar Association and election officer. The letter was composed to request the allocation of 33% of total positions for womenThe request was rejected by Tumakuru District Advocates Association. The Tumakuru District Advocates Association stated that there was already one post reserved exclusively for women in the executive committee. 

A very similar plea was also made in front of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Ms. Deeksha N. Amruthesh vs. State Of Karnataka (2025). The High Court has rejected the plea, stating it was too late to demand such reservations. The petitioners in this case further appealed in the Supreme Court of India. The Apex Court ruled in favour of the petitioners and called for 30-33 percent reservation in the governing bodies of the Bar Association. Along with that, the post of Treasurer will also be reserved for women. 

It was stated that the rejection of the plea violates the petitioner’s rights under Articles 14, 15, and 19(1)(c) of the Indian Constitution and such a rejection is unjust and arbitrary in nature. 

Legal provisions involved in this case

Article 14

Article 14 talks about equality before law. In this case the petitioners have argued that their fundamental rights were violated when the Bar Association rejected the plea for reservation in the governing bodies of the Bar Association. 

Article 15

Article 15 states that no discrimination should be made on the basis of gender. It was also argued by the petitioners that withholding women reservation led to gender discrimination to which the court also agreed. 

Article 142

Article 142 gives power to the Supreme Court to pass orders which are necessary for completing justice. The Supreme Court in this case has used this power to provide reservation to women and earmarking their position in the Bar Associations. 

Key issues before the court Smt. Mohanakumari K. R. vs. State of Karnataka

  1. Whether the Tumkur District Bar Association is compelled to follow the 33 percent reservation for women in elections?
  2. Whether the decision made in Ms. Deeksha N. Amruthesh vs. State Of Karnataka (2025) by the Apex Court under Article 142 of Constitution is binding on all the Bar Associations in India?
  3. Whether the rejection of the plea violated the rights of the petitioner under Article 14 and Article 15?

Submission by both sides in Smt. Mohanakumari K. R. vs. State of Karnataka (2025)

Grounds raised by petitioners

Advocate of the petitioners relied on the Apex Court’s judgement in the case of Ms. Deeksha N. Amruthesh vs. State Of Karnataka (2025). The Supreme Court has directed a reservation of 30 percent of the seats in the governing bodies in this case. The petitioners in the current case contended that there are in total 1200 members, from which the female population amounts to 230. 

The petitioners contended that it was arbitrary and violated their fundamental rights when the Tumakuru District Advocates Association rejected their plea. The petitioners put emphasis on non-discrimination and equality when it came to getting seats in the governing bodies of the Tumakuru District Advocates Association. 

Grounds raised by respondents

Tumakuru District Advocates Association and the State of Karnataka argued that in order to implement the reservation, an amendment will be required in the bye-laws. They further argued that the request for reservation was put in too late. The election dates were already announced. 

The respondents also questioned the legal foreseeability of the Apex Court’s order under Article 142. In the later proceedings, the counsel of the respondents yielded in introducing a new post of Joint Secretary specially for women. It was also conceded to reserve two positions for women for Executive Members.  

Judicial findings in Smt. Mohanakumari K. R. vs. State of Karnataka (2025)

The Karnataka High Court had allowed the petition in relation to reservation of seats for women in the governing bodies of the Bar Associations. The order of the High Court relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ms. Deeksha N. Amruthesh vs. State Of Karnataka (2025). 

Justice M. Nagaprasanna held that the order of the Ms. Deeksha N. Amruthesh vs. State Of Karnataka (2025) is applicable to all district courts. 30 percent reservation in the governing body and the post of the Treasurer must be reserved exclusively for women. Any procedural excuses or delays cannot justify the non-implementation. 

A mandamus was issued by the court which directed:

  1. Redrawing and re-notification of the schedule for election.
  2. Two posts along with the post of Treasurer for women.
  3. Amendments without any delay in the bye-laws by all the Bar Associations.
  4. The elections to be completed within one month by Tumakuru District Advocates Association. 

Takeaways from the case

The current judgement does not only reaffirm the constitutional principles but also puts them into action. By mandating the compulsory 30 percent reservation in the governing bodies in the Bar Associations, the court has tried to pave the way for a more equitable and inclusive legal fraternity. With this case a compelling precedent is set in relation to gender reforms. 

References

Categories

Related Posts

Linkedin-in Instagram Facebook