Allahabad HC Quashes Sultanpur Bar Association Election, Orders 30% Women's Reservation Across All Posts

The Allahabad High Court's Lucknow Bench enforced Supreme Court directions requiring 30% reservation for women in the Sultanpur Bar Association's executive elections, quashing the notified poll process and prescribing a detailed post-wise rotation schedule.

The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court, in a public interest litigation filed by Shashi Mishra, intervened repeatedly between July and August 2026 to compel the Bar Association, Civil Court, Sultanpur to implement the Supreme Court's directions mandating 30% reservation for women advocates in Bar Association executive bodies. The association had proceeded to notify elections for 29 July 2026 without any such reservation, prompting the Division Bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Manjive Shukla to quash that election process and ultimately prescribe a post-specific, rotation-based reservation schedule covering all sixteen posts of the association's executive council. The case turned on whether a Bar Association could treat Supreme Court directions under Article 142 as optional—the bench firmly answered that it could not.

The Dispute Before the High Court

The PIL, registered as PIL No. 646 of 2026, was filed by petitioner Shashi Mishra against the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh and, as Respondent No. 3, the Bar Association, Civil Court, Sultanpur. The grievance was specific: despite orders passed by the Supreme Court in Deeksha N. Amruthesh v. State of Karnataka and others (SLP (C) No. 1404 of 2025) on 24 March 2025, 16 January 2026, 13 March 2026, and 17 April 2026, the Sultanpur Bar Association's Committee of Management held its annual general meeting on 7 July 2026 without reserving any seats for women candidates.

The petition sought a direction to the Bar Association to comply with those Supreme Court directions and to notify the required reservation on its notice board with immediate effect. An intervenor, Rohit Awasthi, also appeared supporting the petitioner and pointed out that a polling date of 29 July 2026 had already been fixed without any reservation provision.

The Bar Association's stated defence was procedural: it claimed that amendments had been proposed on 6 March 2026 and a general body meeting was called for that purpose, but the meeting could not proceed because members opposed it and it was postponed indefinitely.

The Supreme Court Directions at the Centre of the Case

The Supreme Court's order of 13 March 2026 in Deeksha N. Amruthesh directed that at least 30% of the members of the governing or executive bodies of all Bar Associations across the country—at taluka, district, and specialised body level—be women. Where women members were insufficient in number, District Judges were authorised to nominate women to fill the shortfall.

The Supreme Court's subsequent order of 16 April 2026 (cited in the digest as 16.04.2026, though also referenced as 17.04.2026 in one passage) reinforced these directions with a stern warning: Bar Associations that defied the directions would be liable to be suspended through a judicial order and fresh elections would be directed. It also modified the earlier order to provide that nominations, where required, would be made by the Administrative Judge or Portfolio Judge of the jurisdictional High Court in consultation with the District and Sessions Judge, elected office bearers, and the senior-most women members of the respective Bar Association.

These directions were issued under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, making them binding on all Bar Associations as a matter of constitutional obligation.

How the Bench Reasoned

When the matter first came before a coordinate bench on 15 July 2026, consisting of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Manjive Shukla, notices were issued and the matter was directed to be listed on 22 July 2026.

On 22 July 2026, the matter was heard by a bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Jaspreet Singh. The court found that the Bar Association's action of deferring the amendment meeting indefinitely while simultaneously proceeding with elections was “in teeth of the directions issued by Hon'ble Supreme Court.” The bench held that compliance was not a matter of choice. It invoked Article 141 and Article 144 of the Constitution of India, observing that the Bar Association was bound to follow the Supreme Court's directions and that it was not open to the association to decide whether or not to provide for reservation. The Secretary of the Bar Association, present in person, gave an assurance of compliance. The court directed that the required amendments be completed by 30 July 2026 and that a fresh election schedule be notified thereafter. The election process already notified, with polling set for 29 July 2026, was quashed.

By 10 August 2026, the matter returned before Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Manjive Shukla. The Bar Association's proposed amendment reserved only one post of Treasurer and four posts of Governing Council members for women—falling well short of the 30% threshold across all posts. The bench rejected this as inadequate, observing that the reservation had to apply across the board to all posts, not selectively. The court then laid down a detailed rotation schedule for each of the sixteen posts in the executive council.

On 13 August 2026, counsel at the bar suggested corrections to that order after pointing out that there were three posts of Joint Secretary (Administration, Library, and Club) with distinct duties, and that the earlier order needed adjustment to reflect the actual structure of the executive body. The bench allowed a modification application and revised the rotation schedule accordingly. The court also, in exercise of its PIL jurisdiction, directed that all candidates contesting elections must disclose any FIRs or criminal cases filed against them on their nomination papers, with concealment being a ground for cancellation of candidature or election.

On 25 August 2026, when another modification application was filed, the bench allowed limited corrections but expressly stated that no further applications for modification would be entertained. It directed the Elder's Committee to issue the election schedule within three days and hold elections within three weeks of that schedule. The court warned that any interference by outgoing office bearers with the Elder's Committee's charge would be treated as contempt of court.

The Reservation Schedule Prescribed

The bench prescribed the following post-wise reservation for the sixteen-post executive council of the Sultanpur Bar Association:

• One post of Junior Executive Member (out of four): reserved for women permanently.
• One post of Senior Executive Member (out of four): reserved for women permanently.
• Joint Secretary (Administration): reserved for women in 2026; Joint Secretary (Library) in 2027; Joint Secretary (Club) in 2028; rotation continues.
• Treasurer: reserved for women in 2027, then 2030, then 2033, and so on by rotation.
• General Secretary: reserved for women in 2026, then 2029, then 2032, and so on by rotation.
• Vice President: reserved for women in 2026, then 2028, then 2029, then 2031, then 2032, and so on by rotation.
• Senior Vice President: reserved for women in 2027, then 2030, then 2033, and so on by rotation.
• President: reserved for women in 2028, then 2031, then 2034, and so on by rotation.

The bench also clarified that if reservation could not be filled for any reason, it would look to the Supreme Court's orders and the concerned Administrative Judge or District Judge would nominate a woman to hold the reserved office. All orders were made expressly subject to any subsequent order of the Supreme Court in Deeksha N. Amruthesh (supra), which was still pending.

Criminal Disclosure Requirement for Candidates

An additional direction, drawn from the court's PIL jurisdiction rather than from the Supreme Court's reservation mandate, required all candidates contesting the Sultanpur Bar Association elections to disclose in their nomination papers every FIR or criminal case lodged against them, whether the proceedings were concluded or pending. Candidates could offer explanations or remarks in relation to those cases. Concealment or misrepresentation was identified as a ground for cancellation of candidature or election. The bench directed that provision for this disclosure be made in the nomination paper itself.

Order

The election process notified by the Sultanpur Bar Association, with polling scheduled for 29 July 2026, was quashed by the bench on 22 July 2026. Respondent No. 3, the Bar Association, was directed to amend its bye-laws to incorporate 30% reservation for women by 30 July 2026 and to notify a fresh election schedule thereafter.

By orders dated 10 August 2026 and 13 August 2026, the bench prescribed the post-wise rotation schedule set out above and directed the Elder's Committee to reschedule and hold elections within fifteen days of receipt of the certified copy of the 13 August 2026 order.

By order dated 25 August 2026, the bench finalised the reservation scheme, allowed limited modifications, and barred any further modification applications. The Elder's Committee was directed to issue the election schedule within three days and complete elections within three weeks. The matter was listed for the week commencing 21 September 2026. The bench made clear that interference by outgoing office bearers would attract contempt proceedings.