Supreme Court Empowers High Court Chief Justices To Nominate Co-Opted Women Members To State Bar Councils

The Supreme Court has directed that the Chief Justices of the jurisdictional High Courts may be authorized to nominate co-opted women members to the State Bar Councils, who shall be either a former woman Judge of the jurisdictional High Court or a senior woman advocate or a woman member of the Bar having fair standing from the concerned State/States

The court emphasized that this procedure will infuse objectivity, independence, and transparency into the statutory bodies.

Additionally, the Bench permitted members of the Bar to submit opinions on state-specific regional representation to the High-Powered Supervisory Committee headed by Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia within one week.

The Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana ordered, "On a suggestion by the Court, there is a broad consensus that the Chief Justice of the jurisdictional High Court may be authorized to nominate co-opted women members to the State Bar Council from among: 1. A former woman Judge of the jurisdictional High Court; or 2. A senior woman advocate or woman member of the Bar having fair standing from the concerned State/States...In our considered opinion, this will infuse objectivity, independence, and transparency into the working of the State Bar Councils. We accordingly direct that the two women candidates to be co-opted into every State Bar Council shall be chosen from amongst: (i) A former woman Judge of the jurisdictional High Court; or (ii) A senior woman advocate/member of the Bar having fair standing from the concerned State/States."

The Court considered two issues:

1. What should be the zone of consideration for the purpose of co-option of women members to the State Bar Councils?

2. What should be the correct methodology of transferring single transferable votes, and how are these transferable votes to be calculated amongst the contesting candidates, particularly women candidates?

As regard the Issue No. 1, it said, "As regards Issue No. 1, we have discussed the matter in open court with members of the Bar representing various State Bar Councils who are present in court."

Previously, the Court had mandated that 30% of the seats in all State Bar Councils, where elections have not yet been scheduled, must be reserved for women advocates. For the current election year, the Court specifically ordered the reservation to be implemented as, i) 20% of the seats must be filled through the election of women members and, ii) 10% of the seats will be filled through co-option.

The Court also ordered, "Taking into consideration all relevant factors, including regional representation peculiar to specific situations (e.g., joint Bar Councils such as Maharashtra & Goa or Tamil Nadu & Puducherry), members of the Bar are permitted to submit their suggestions/opinions to the High-Powered Committee headed by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, former Judge of this Court, within one week."

In September 2024, the Court issued notice in the public interest litigation (PIL), raising concerns over the under-representation of women, queer individuals, persons with disabilities, and marginalised communities in the Bar Council of India (BCI) and State Bar Councils. The petitioner, also a member of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA), Yogamaya M.G., urged the court to take cognizance of this issue and address the lack of proportional representation in these bodies.

Cause Title: M Varadhan v. Union of India [W.P.(C) No. 1319/2023]