Recently, the Karnataka High Court dismissed pleas seeking a 33% reservation of women lawyers in elections to the state's bar associations in a significant order. The case had sparked quite a big debate within the legal fraternity, based on the demand for affirmative action that would ensure more representation of women in the decision-making bodies of bar associations.Background to the Case Two petitions were before the court at the instance of women lawyers canvassing for implementation of gender-based reservations in elections to bar councils. The main point was that notwithstanding a growing entry of women in the legal profession, their percentage of representation within the bar structure continued to remain despicably low. The women argued that an inadequate number of women in authoritative decision-making offices further entrenched inequality between genders, leading to improper access to this field of professions. The petitioners based their plea on constitutional provisions such as Article 14, Right to Equality, and Article 15(3), which empowers the state to make special provisions for women. They drew attention to the fact that the introduction of 33% reservation in the bar association elections would be a part of the general principle of gender justice within the Constitution. High Court's Observations The Bench of Karnataka High Court acknowledged the importance of gender equality but refused to accept the petitions, submitting that as such reservations are neither mandated by either the Advocates Act, 1961 nor the bar council rules. The court held that bar councils are independent in themselves. Mandatory reservations upon them would only require legislative intent rather than judicial enforcement. The court also observed that though the rationale behind the demand was noble, judicial overreach in the absence of clear legislative provisions would itself undermine the very institutional autonomy of bar associations. It further held that only policy reforms should bring about sustainable change in the manner of representation and not by judicial pronouncements. Implications of the Judgment It has evoked mixed reactions from the legal fraternity. While its proponents argue it is the need of the hour in the absence of affirmative measures as systemic hurdles will be perpetual to deem women absent in positions of power, the critics have suggested that reservations may eventually run into the issue of meritocracy and democratic working within bar councils. Legal experts argue that this judgment shows what legislative intervention is required in professional organizations to fill the gender disparities. They also advocate for more mentorship and support systems that will make women lawyers contest elections and gain leadership positions organically. This verdict would remind that, although the impetus to achieve gender equity falls within the constitutional horizon, a balance has to be met, which the effort should come through legislation and legislature as well as societal will. Reservation for women in bar elections would most likely continue to be a contentious issue and thus push the stakeholders toward radical solutions towards ensuring inclusion within the legal profession.