Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain PIL Seeking SC/ST Quota In State Bar Councils

Observing that the plea had been filed belatedly after the election process had already been set in motion, a bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice R Mahadevan and Justice Joymalya Bagchi said it was too late to seek such representation for the ongoing polls.

During the hearing, the counsels for the petitioners relied on the top court’s earlier order mandating representation for women lawyers in the state Bar councils.

The counsels for the petitioners, including Advocate Ram Kumar Gautam, argued that the orders on women lawyers’ representation in the state Bar councils were issued despite the Advocates Act, 1961, being silent on the issue of reservation or representation.

“You are everywhere. In the judiciary, among lawyers, in Parliament… The Bar council has been there since 1961, and you did nothing. Just because the Supreme Court did something for women, you come now! You just want it on a platter,” the CJI said.

Clarifying the scope of the earlier directions, the CJI said the bench did not grant “reservation” to women lawyers but only mandated their “representation” to address long-standing under-representation.

“We have not provided reservation for women; it is only representation,” the CJI said.

The CJI also observed that the relief granted to women lawyers was the outcome of sustained litigation over a considerable period and criticised the petitioners for approaching the court only after the election process had commenced.

“Women started fighting in our court for the last two years. At last, they succeeded. You also approach the authorities and then come here. You have come to court when elections are announced. You thought you would claim something and get what has been extended to women members,” he said.

The bench asked the petitioners to first raise their grievance before the appropriate statutory authorities, adding that judicial intervention could be sought later if their representation failed to yield results.

“You can approach us for the next election,” the CJI said.

The bench granted the petitioners the liberty to submit a representation to the competent authorities, including the Bar Council of India, relying on the Apex Court’s earlier orders.

“Take representation of our earlier order and show the authorities. I am sure they will take it up, considering the number of members there now. But if you don’t hear back, we will take a call,” the bench said, adding that it was hopeful that the competent authority would give due consideration to the issue.

“Petitioner is at liberty to approach the competent authority. We are hopeful that the appropriate authority will consider (the matter) and make a decision. We are hopeful that the representation will draw adequate attention from the authorities,” the order said.

In December 2025, the bench directed that 30 per cent representation for women lawyers in the state Bar councils was “non-negotiable” and mandated that any shortfall be addressed through co-option.

It also supported initiatives aimed at enhancing the participation of specially-abled lawyers in the Bar council elections, pursuant to which the Bar Council of India agreed to reduce the nomination fees for such candidates.

With PTI Inputs