9 Women vs 432 Men in Bar Councils Nationwide: SC Issues Notice Over Gender Disparity

The petition, filed by Advocate Shehla Chaudhary, was drawn by Advocates Md. Anas Chaudhary and Alia Zaid, and filed through Advocate-on-Record Ansar Ahmad Chaudhary.

The matter was argued by Advocate Dr. Charu Mathur before the Bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi which observed that the petitioner may have approached the Court late, but nonetheless issued notice returnable in one week.

Dr. Mathur, appearing for the petitioner, urged the Court to intervene even if certain State Bar Councils had already closed their nomination processes, arguing that the Apex Court could still direct them to reopen the window for a short duration. “The Court can direct reopening of nominations for even three days to ensure compliance with women’s representation,” she submitted.

Accepting the plea’s urgency, the Bench directed that notice be served to all State Bar Councils via email, returnable within a week.

The PIL seeks judicial directions to implement one-third reservation for women in all State Bar Councils, aligning with the constitutional vision of gender equality and equal opportunity. The plea states that, while the number of women lawyers enrolled and practicing has steadily increased, their representation in bar governance remains disproportionately low, a fact that undermines the inclusiveness and responsiveness of the legal profession.

Citing data from a Bar & Bench report (July 2021), the petitioner notes that only 9 out of 441 elected representatives across State Bar Councils are women; a mere 2.04%. “Issues concerning women advocates are rarely addressed due to negligible representation in bar councils and associations,” the petition states. It further relies on a report by the Supreme Court’s Centre for Research and Planning, which highlighted that one in five district courts in India lack separate toilets for women, arguing that structural neglect of such basic facilities stems from the absence of women in decision-making roles.

The petition traces the journey of women in the legal profession, recalling pioneers like Cornelia Sorabji, the first woman to pass the Civil Law examination at Oxford in 1892 but barred from practice in India, and Regina Guha, who was similarly denied enrollment by the Calcutta High Court in 1916. It notes that women gained the right to practice law only after the Legal Practitioners (Women) Act, 1923 came into force.

Despite a century since that reform, women remain significantly underrepresented in bar leadership. The plea argues that this lack of inclusion violates the principles of equality and representation enshrined in Articles 14, 15, 16, and 21 of the Constitution. Referring to the Advocates Act, 1961, particularly Section 6(1)(d), the petition submits that to safeguard the rights and privileges of advocates, bar councils must reflect gender diversity to address women-specific professional challenges.

The petitioner draws parallels with broader reforms in political and cooperative institutions, including the 106th Constitutional Amendment (Nari Shakti Vandan Adhiniyam) which reserves one-third of seats for women in the Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies. Similarly, Articles 243D and 243T provide for reservation in Panchayati Raj Institutions and Municipalities, and Article 243ZJ(1) ensures women’s representation in cooperative societies.

The petition also cites the Supreme Court’s own precedent; its May 2, 2024 order reserving one-third of seats in the Executive Committee of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) for women. The petitioner argues that a similar model must apply to all State Bar Councils under the principle of proportional representation laid out in Section 3(2)(b) of the Advocates Act, 1961.

“The expression ‘proportional representation’ must include underrepresented classes of advocates, especially women,” the petition asserts.