In a significant move to ensure the smooth implementation of gender quotas in legal regulatory bodies, the Supreme Court on Monday directed a high-powered election supervisory committee to determine the specific “mode and manner” for co-opting women into State Bar Councils.
The committee, chaired by former Supreme Court judge Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, has been authorized to decide how the 30 per cent representation mandate for women lawyers will be fulfilled, particularly in scenarios where an insufficient number of women are elected through the standard voting process.
The matter reached the top court following concerns that the “co-option” mechanism—intended as a safety net—could be misinterpreted or misused. In December 2023, the Supreme Court had mandated 30 per cent representation for women in State Bar Councils, allowing for up to 10 per cent of seats to be filled via co-option if the election results fell short of the target.
During Monday’s hearing, a bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi acknowledged that ambiguity in the previous order regarding the 10 per cent co-option process had led to the current dispute.
Senior Advocate D.S. Naidu, representing petitioners from Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, highlighted a positive trend where women candidates were winning seats in the “open category,” often outperforming their male colleagues. He argued that co-option should strictly be a “last resort.”
“The unintended consequence is that those who took the trouble of contesting are being marginalised,” Naidu contended. He warned that allowing Bar Councils to simply recommend names rather than selecting from the pool of unsuccessful candidates who actually contested would result in “mayhem.”
The court also heard arguments regarding recent rules proposed by the Bar Council of India (BCI). Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for an intervenor, noted that the BCI intended to handle the co-option process in consultation with bar associations.
Sankaranarayanan argued that this approach could open a “Pandora’s box” and potentially violate Section 3(2)(b) of the Advocates Act, which requires members to be chosen through proportional representation via a single transferable vote.
Faced with several competing methods for co-option—ranging from selecting the “highest-voted” unsuccessful women candidates to leaving the choice to the BCI or State Bar Councils—the bench concluded that the Justice Dhulia Committee was best equipped to weigh the merits of each option.
“The committee is requested to take a decision after consulting all stakeholders,” the bench stated.
The high-powered committee, which also includes Justice Ravi Shankar Jha (former Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court) and Senior Advocate V. Giri, is currently overseeing State Bar Council elections across the country.
