Thereafter, Senior Advocate Gurukumar, appearing in the matter, cautioned that amendments to the Advocates Act may be required and that several states have already initiated their election processes, making immediate implementation challenging. “The time frame is tight and the process has already begun in some places. It is fraught with difficulty,” he said.
The Chief Justice noted that several leading associations have already achieved the benchmark. “The SCBA has 30 percent. The Bangalore Bar has 30 percent,” he said, adding that the BCI should ensure a similar standard statewide.
When Gurukumar suggested uncertainty over how many women may step forward to contest, the CJI responded pointedly: “You were not there in yesterday’s workshop. Eighty-three percent of women said they want to be members of the various state bar councils.”
Gurukumar referred to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s words from the US Supreme Court, observing that structural change “can only be achieved with the endurance of time.”
The CJI said the case would continue to operate as a “continuous mandamus,” assuring that the Court would address issues as they arise. He directed the BCI to “come out with a notification on Monday, i.e. December 8.”
Notably, on November 26, the Court had issued notice in a public interest litigation seeking directions to ensure proportional representation of women, queer persons, persons with disabilities, and lawyers from marginalized communities in the Bar Council of India (BCI) and State Bar Councils. The petitioner, Advocate Yogamaya MG has contended in the PIL that despite the Advocates Act, 1961 being in force for over six decades, there has been no legislative or policy intervention to address the “gross underrepresentation” of women and other marginalized groups in these statutory bodies.
The plea highlights that out of 441 members across all State Bar Councils, only nine are women, underscoring what the petitioner calls a “deeply entrenched imbalance” in the governance of the legal profession. It urges the top court to interpret the term “proportional representation” under Section 3(2)(b) of the Advocates Act, 1961 to include gender, social, and disability-based representation. “The Bar Council plays a pivotal role in regulating the legal profession, yet its composition fails to reflect the diversity of the Bar itself. This is contrary to Articles 14, 15, 16, and 21 of the Constitution,” the petition states, adding that Article 15(3) empowers the State to make special provisions for women and must extend to the legal profession as well.
The Supreme Court had fixed a revised, five-phase timetable for State Bar Council elections across 16 States and Union Territories, directing that the long-pending polls be completed between January 31 and April 30, 2026. Court had also set up High Powered Election Monitoring Committees (HPEMCs) at regional levels and a pan-India High Powered Supervisory Committee headed by a former Supreme Court judge.
The Bar Council of India and all State Bar Councils participating in Phases I–V are also sought to be directed to incorporate the above gender-equity measures into their election notifications, rules, and procedures for the 2026 election cycle.
The continued 0% representation of women in the BCI is stated to constitute a violation of substantive equality, frustrate the constitutional promise of equal access to public institutions, and defeat the mandate to ensure representation in bodies exercising public functions.
The Supreme Court has issued notice on a similar public interest litigation (PIL) seeking reservation for women advocates in State Bar Councils across India, citing their gross under-representation in bar leadership despite rising participation in the legal profession. 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.
Case Title: Yogamaya MG v. Union of India & Ors.