The Supreme Court of India on November 3, 2025, disposed of a writ petition seeking reservation for persons with disabilities in Bar Councils and Bar Associations, directing the Bar Council of India (BCI) to consider the issue as a policy matter. The Court, however, declined to issue a positive mandamus at this stage, noting that elections for the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh have already been notified.
The matter, Writ Petition(s) (Civil) No(s). 1045/2025, Amit Kumar Yadav vs. Bar Council of India & Anr., was heard by a three-judge bench comprising Justice Surya Kant, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, and Justice Joymalya Bagchi.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Amit Kumar Yadav, was identified by the Court as a “practicing advocate.” The order noted, “It is worth noting that he often takes up the cause of the rights of persons with disability.”
The “instant writ petition, purportedly in public interest,” was filed seeking a direction to the Bar Council of India and the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh “to reserve some of the positions in the Bar Council and Bar Associations for persons with disabilities, who are practicing as advocates.”
The Court also took note of the factual context that “It is not in dispute that the election for the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh has already been notified, though the nominations are yet to be filed.”
Court’s Analysis and Decision
The Supreme Court bench found it difficult to intervene with a direct order for reservation at this juncture. “At this stage, it seems difficult for this Court to interfere and issue a positive mandamus for providing the reservation that is sought,” the Court observed in its order.
The bench characterized the core issue as one of policy, stating, “However, the reservation for persons with disability essentially being a policy matter, we dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the Bar Council of India to consider the cause espoused by the petitioner in light of the relevant legislative policies and statutes emanating from the constitutional principles of equality.”
Instead of issuing the writ, the Court left the decision-making to the relevant bodies. “Consequently, at this stage, we leave it open to all the stakeholders to take an appropriate decision in the subject-matter,” the order read.
While disposing of the petition, the Court preserved the petitioner’s right to seek further legal remedy in the future. The bench concluded, “Needless to say, the petitioner shall not be precluded from approaching the appropriate forum, if so required, at a later stage.”
All pending applications were also disposed of.
