In a decisive move to address the historical gender imbalance within the legal profession’s governing bodies, the Supreme Court on Monday declared that reserving 30 percent of seats for women in all State Bar Councils is “non-negotiable.” The Court directed that wherever ongoing election processes make immediate implementation through direct polls difficult, the mandatory quota must be fulfilled through the mechanism of co-option.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi emphasized that the Bar Council of India (BCI) bears the responsibility to ensure that women advocates ultimately occupy at least 30 percent of the total seats in every State Bar Council across the nation.
Implementation Amidst Ongoing Elections
The Court addressed practical difficulties arising from States where electoral processes are already underway or concluded. It was noted that elections in Bihar and Chhattisgarh have been completed, and notifications have been issued for four other States.
Acknowledging that it would not be prudent to alter the electoral process mid-way for these specific instances, the Bench clarified that the shortfall in women’s representation must be addressed through co-option. The Court reiterated that the BCI’s obligation extends beyond merely mandating reservation on paper; it must ensure effective inclusion.
For the remaining State Bar Councils where elections are yet to be notified, the Bench laid down a specific formula:
- Women must receive 30 percent representation.
- This comprises 20 percent through direct election and 10 percent through co-option.
The Court has directed that a detailed proposal explaining the methodology for co-opting women advocates be placed before it. The BCI Chairman and Senior Advocate Manan Kumar Mishra submitted that the Council has agreed in principle to the reservation mandate.
Reservation for Active Practitioners Only
During the hearing, Senior Advocate Meenakshi Arora, representing one of the petitioners, raised concerns regarding the demographics of women in the profession. She pointed out that in States like Uttar Pradesh, the representation of women in electoral rolls is extremely low, while in Maharashtra, the number of actively practicing women advocates is significantly smaller than the registered numbers.
Addressing this, the Chief Justice of India made a crucial distinction regarding eligibility. The CJI remarked that representation must reflect those who are active in the profession. He clarified that those who do not actively practice and are not the face of the profession should not be included in this reservation mandate.
Background: Addressing a History of Exclusion
The directive stems from petitions filed by advocates Yogamaya MG and Shehla Chaudhary [Case: Yogamaya MG vs. Union of India & Ors.], who sought mandatory representation for women in the BCI and State Bar Councils.
The petitions highlighted stark data placed before the Court, revealing a gross underrepresentation of women in Bar governance:
- Out of 441 elected representatives across 18 State Bar Councils, only nine are women (a mere 2.04 percent).
- The Bar Council of India has not had a single woman member since its inception in 1961.
In an earlier order dated December 4, the Supreme Court had directed that existing rules under the Advocates Act, 1961, be construed as amended to facilitate this 30 percent reservation, extending the directive to the posts of office bearers as well. The Court had previously termed the measure as being in keeping with the “constitutional ethos and the country’s legislative push towards gender equality.”
