Will Ensure Adequate Representation Of Specially Abled Lawyers In State Bar Councils: Supreme Court

Observing that a statutory amendment may be needed to institutionalise representation of specially abled lawyers in bar councils, the Apex Court asked the Bar Council of India (BCI), represented by chairperson and Senior Advocate Manan Kumar Mishra, to take Rs 15,000 as nomination fee, instead of Rs 1.25 lakh, from such advocates who want to contest the upcoming polls.

While hearing a PIL filed by lawyer Pankaj Sinha, a bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was apprised by the BCI chairperson that under the existing statutory framework, there was no scope for reservation or adjustment of specially abled advocates in the main council itself.

However, he assured the court that the BCI could ensure their participation by making suitable adjustments through representation in various committees of state bar councils.

The CJI, however, emphasised that the court’s primary concern was to ensure adequate and effective representation of specially abled lawyers.

“Our purpose is to ensure that an effective presence is felt in the decision-making committees of the Bar Council of India,” the CJI observed.

Senior Advocate Indira Jaising raised a crucial issue regarding the nomination fee of Rs 1.25 lakh charged to advocates contesting bar council elections. She argued that specially abled lawyers should not be required to pay such a "prohibitive amount", as it effectively excludes them from the electoral process.

The CJI suggested a substantial relaxation, stating that for specially abled persons, the Bar Council should levy only a nominal or symbolic fee.

“Instead of Rs 1.25 lakh, it could be Rs 25,000,” the CJI said. Jaising responded that even Rs 25,000 could be a high amount for many specially abled advocates.

Accepting this concern, the BCI chairperson said that the apex bar body was willing to further reduce the fee and stated that Rs 15,000 could be fixed as a symbolic nomination amount.

During the hearing, Mishra said it was too late in the day to provide quota, as envisaged under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, and rather such advocates could be nominated in various state bar council committees by way of co-option.

However, a counsel raised apprehensions about the process of co-option, arguing that if co-option remained entirely within the discretion of the authorities, there would be no transparency or certainty regarding who would be co-opted.

The CJI said that a statutory amendment would be necessary to institutionalise representation and avoid arbitrariness. The BCI chairperson, however, pointed out that there was no reservation mandated by Parliament for specially abled advocates in bar councils.

Sinha, the petitioner, referred to constitutional principles and argued that provisions such as Article 29 require persons with disabilities to be considered in all forms of participatory frameworks.

The CJI, while not entering into a detailed constitutional adjudication at this stage, observed, “We have to begin somewhere. In the times to follow, maybe this reservation will be seen in different public institutions.”

The bench identified two principal issues for consideration and said they were ensuring adequate representation of specially abled lawyers in the upcoming bar council elections, and addressing the issue of the nomination fee of Rs 1.25 lakh.

It noted that since the election process had already commenced in most state bar councils, the chairman of the BCI stated that adequate representation would, for the present, be ensured through inclusion of specially abled advocates in different committees.

It also noted the BCI’s submission that advocates belonging to the specially abled category, who wish to contest elections, would be required to pay a symbolic fee of Rs 15,000 instead of Rs 1.25 lakh.

The bench made it clear that this concession would be confined exclusively to specially abled advocates, and no parity would be extended to other candidates.

It directed the BCI to initiate the process of amending its statutory provisions so that in future elections, adequate representation is provided to all categories for whom reservation is envisaged, whether under the constitutional scheme or various welfare statutes.

The bench observed that it had “no doubt” that the BCI would take up the cause of effective representation of specially abled advocates, even if it required legislative or statutory amendments.

“We will make sure there is adequate co-option and adequate representation is provided,” the CJI said.

In addition, the bench said that the BCI may approach the Centre for devising a mechanism to revise enrolment fees.

It also asked high courts not to entertain related petitions once the election process had already commenced.

Earlier, the Apex Court had asked the BCI to ensure 30 per cent reservation for women in the upcoming state bar council elections.

With PTI Inputs