Bengaluru, September 14, 2025 – The Advocates Association of Bengaluru (AAB) has informed the Karnataka High Court that it will not impose restrictions on members of the newly proposed High Court Bar Association (HCBA) from using its facilities. This statement comes in response to a petition filed by HCBA challenging AAB’s decision to suspend members who sought to establish the alternative association. The Karnataka High Court has directed HCBA to refrain from taking any further steps until the matter is resolved.

Background and Court Proceedings:
On August 28, 2025, AAB held a special general body meeting where it resolved to suspend members attempting to form the HCBA, a move HCBA claims is unlawful and should be quashed. The petition, filed by HCBA Vice President T.A. Rajashekar, was heard by a single-judge bench led by Justice B.M. Shyam Prasad.

AAB President and senior advocate Vivek Subbareddy clarified to the court that no restrictions would be imposed on HCBA members regarding the use of AAB facilities. The court recorded this statement and further directed HCBA not to proceed with any actions, as AAB has questioned the very registration of the HCBA.BULLMER Striped Textured Printed Polo Neck Fullsleeve T-Shirt with Rib for Men

Court Directives:

The Karnataka High Court issued notices to AAB, the Karnataka State Bar Council (KSBC), and the Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies in connection with the petition.

The court ordered that the matter be clubbed with petitions related to KSBC elections for further hearings.

HCBA had sought directions to prevent AAB from taking hasty actions against its office bearers and to stop AAB from engaging in conduct that could defame HCBA members. They also requested the court to direct KSBC to take action against AAB for its alleged unlawful conduct.Also Read: Charlie Kirk Fatally Shot During Utah Valley University Event: Suspect in Custody

Key Points of Contention:

HCBA argued that AAB’s resolution to suspend members for attempting to form an alternative association violates legal norms. They further contended that AAB’s actions are aimed at tarnishing the reputation of HCBA office bearers. In response, AAB’s assurance of non-restriction on facility usage was noted by the court, which emphasized maintaining the status quo until a final decision is reached.

The court’s directive ensures that no precipitous actions are taken by either party, and the issue will be deliberated alongside related KSBC election matters. The outcome of this legal battle could significantly impact the dynamics between the two associations and their members.