SC: SC/ST QUOTA IN KARNATAKA BAR SERIOUS, BUT NO CASTE-RELIGIOUS DIVIDE:

SC: SC/ST QUOTA IN KARNATAKA BAR SERIOUS, BUT NO CASTE-RELIGIOUS DIVIDE:

The Supreme Court on 14th February acknowledged the significance of a plea filed by certain lawyers in Karnataka, seeking reservations for advocates from marginalized communities in bar associations.

A Bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh emphasized that while ensuring diversity and representation in bar bodies is crucial, the Court remains mindful of the need to prevent such organizations from turning into politically fragmented entities based on caste or religion. The judges highlighted the importance of maintaining the professional integrity of these institutions while addressing concerns about inclusivity.

"Issue is serious and we have to deal with it.. (But) we do not want bar to be divided on caste and religious lines. We don't want that and we will not allow it to become a political platform. Let's be clear about that," the Court said.

The Supreme Court was hearing petitions filed by the All India Backward Classes Advocates Foundation and the Karnataka SC/ST Backward Classes and Minorities Advocates Federation. These petitions sought the implementation of reservations for individuals belonging to the Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), and Other Backward Classes (OBC) in the governing council of the Advocates Association, Bengaluru (AAB). The petitioners argued that such measures would promote greater representation and inclusivity within the legal profession, ensuring that marginalized communities have a voice in the decision-making processes of bar associations.

The petitioners had initially approached the Karnataka High Court, seeking equitable representation by drawing parallels to a recent Supreme Court directive. In that ruling, the apex court had mandated the Advocates Association, Bengaluru (AAB) to ensure the inclusion of women lawyers in its governing council by reserving a minimum of 30 percent of the seats. However, the Karnataka High Court dismissed their plea, stating that the matter was beyond its jurisdiction and advising the petitioners to seek relief from the Supreme Court instead. As a result, the petitioners escalated the matter to the Supreme Court, leading to the present legal proceedings before the country’s highest judicial authority.

Senior Advocate Madhavi Divan, representing the petitioners, argued that no member from the SC/ST community had been part of the Advocates Association, Bengaluru (AAB) governing council for the past 50 years. She emphasized the need for affirmative action in bar associations to ensure access and representation for underrepresented communities.

Initially, the Supreme Court expressed reluctance, cautioning that granting such reservations could open a "Pandora’s box." Justice Surya Kant noted that while the Court had mandated women's representation in urban bar associations, similar measures for SC/STs would require nationwide data collection and expert review, which was currently unavailable.

Despite this, Divan pressed for diversity in the legal profession, arguing that role models were essential for greater inclusivity. She also cited international practices, prompting the Court to assert that India's legal community was already aware of representation challenges. Eventually, the Court agreed to hear the case alongside another pending matter related to bar associations, scheduling both for February 17.