Bar Council Polls: HC Refuses SC/ST Quota Plea

 Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court on Wednesday dismissed two pleas in connection with the upcoming elections to the State Bar Council. In one writ petition, Padma Rao Putta sought reservation for SC/STs in the elected apex body. He contended that the right of said communities required to be recognised by the Bar Council and that it must aling with the Constitution. The panel comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin dismissed the plea on the ground that the relief cannot be entertained at the cusp of the elections, after the election notification had been issued. The election for the State Bar Council is scheduled for January 30, and receipt of nominations is underway.

In yet another plea, the panel dismissed the challenge to Rule IV, Chapter I, including the BCI Revised Election Eligibility Rules, 2023, which envisage qualifications, disqualifications, election procedure and a code of conduct for the elections of State Bar Council/Bar Council of India. The amended rules now specify that disqualification applies if two or more such cases are pending. He pointed out that the rule continues to disqualify advocates who have been punished by a Disciplinary Committee or have disciplinary cases pending within nine months of the election, which according to the petitioner is ex-facie ultra-vires and arbitrary. He contended that respondents are exceeding their jurisdiction by making such unconstitutional rules, deliberately disregarding the constitutional ethos and by giving the colour of ethical standards and making them the cornerstone of eligibility for membership of the Bar Council of Telangana.

HC notice on fencers’ selection process

Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka of the Telangana High Court issued notice to the Telangana Olympic Association and other concerned authorities in a writ plea alleging inaction in selecting fencers and reconstituting a legitimate Fencing Association ahead of a national championship. The judge was dealing with a writ plea filed by G. Vijay Singh and three other fencers. They alleged inaction on the part of the respondents, particularly the Sports Authority of Telangana, in not considering their representation seeking initiation of the process for reconstitution of a fair and legitimate Fencing Association. The petitioners are also seeking seeking selection of fencing participants under the supervision of either the Sports Authority of Telangana or the Telangana Olympic Association. According to the petitioners, the continued failure of the authorities would adversely affect the participation of Telangana fencers in the National Fencing Championship, scheduled to be held from January 5 to 10, 2026, at the Jawaharlal Nehru Indoor Stadium, Cuttack, Odisha, organised by the Odisha State Fencing Association. The petitioners contended that despite the imminent commencement of the championship, no transparent or fair selection process took place. The petitioners argued that such inaction is illegal, arbitrary, unjust, untenable, and violative of the principles of natural justice. The petitioners are seeking directions to the respondents to consider the representation submitted by the petitioners and to select eligible fencing participants for the said event. The judge ordered notice to the Telangana Olympic Association and other authorities, calling for their response.

Jobs for Srisailam Project displaced

Justice Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao of the Telangana High Court took on file a writ plea filed by H. Nagaraju alleging denial of employment to displaced persons under the Srisailam Project rehabilitation scheme. The petitioner contended impugned July Government Order is aimed at denying employment to displaced persons, despite binding government orders mandating reservation of 50 per cent posts in the irrigation and CAD department for families displaced due to submergence of lands and houses under the Srisailam Project. The petitioner further contended that several government orders categorically provide for 50 per cent employment to project-displaced persons and that the said policy was framed in consonance with the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act. According to the petitioner, denial of such employment is illegal and in violation of the Constitution, apart from being contrary to the principles of natural justice. The petitioner contended that unless the impugned Government Order is set aside, the petitioner and similarly placed displaced persons would suffer irreparable loss and hardship. The Government Pleader appearing for the state sought time to obtain instructions.