A group of women advocates who stood sixth and seventh among female candidates in the recent Bar Council elections have filed a petition before the Supreme Court, seeking a recall and reconsideration of the Court’s August 4 order determining the mechanism for co-opting women into State Bar Councils.
The petitioners contend that the August 4 order was passed without granting them an effective hearing and without considering material reports submitted pursuant to the Court’s own previous directions, including the recommendations of a High-Powered Supervisory Committee headed by former Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia.
High Participation in Elections Cited
The petition highlights the robust participation of women in the electoral process, arguing that the initial apprehension about a lack of candidates has been proven wrong. The document lists the number of women who contested across various states, including Delhi (88), Rajasthan (56), Telangana (55), and Maharashtra & Goa (52).
“This overwhelming participation is a clear indication of a healthy and evolving democratic phenomenon within the legal profession,” the petition states. It further argues: “Once the elections were conducted and the actual participation, performance and electoral mandate of women candidates became evident, it would be appropriate to consider implementing the 30% representation through the democratic electoral process itself, to the fullest extent possible, rather than resorting to co-option for filling seats that could otherwise be occupied by duly elected women candidates.”
Bypassing of Supervisory Committee Report
The petitioners express concern that the report submitted by the High-Powered Supervisory Committee—which was the product of an extensive consultation exercise with stakeholders—was submitted in a sealed cover but was not considered before the final mechanism was prescribed. They “reliably understand” that the Committee had recommended co-opting candidates at the 6th and 7th positions.
The petition also notes that the Bar Council of India had filed a separate application requesting that "the women candidates who were eliminated at last... those who remained on 6th & 7th position" be co-opted. The petitioners argue that these reports and recommendations could not have been “bypassed or rendered inconsequential without consideration,” especially since the final order materially affected their rights.
Violation of Natural Justice
The advocates have strongly asserted that the order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. “The Applicants respectfully submit that the order dated 04.08.2026 came to be passed without the Applicants being afforded an effective and meaningful opportunity of hearing on the proposed mechanism of co-option and its consequences upon their rights and interests,” the petition reads.
It adds: “An order having civil and legal consequences cannot ordinarily be founded upon a process in which the persons directly affected have had no effective opportunity to address the Court on the material and mechanism ultimately adopted.”
Constitutional Challenge under Article 142
Significantly, the petitioners have raised a constitutional question regarding the limits of the Supreme Court's power under Article 142. While acknowledging the Court’s wide powers to do complete justice, they argue that this power “cannot be treated as an unrestricted legislative power to amend, rewrite, substitute or supplant the substantive provisions of a statute.”
Citing the statutory framework of the Advocates Act, 1961—which provides for proportional representation through the Single Transferable Vote—the petition argues that the co-option mechanism should remain “harmonious with the statutory scheme and the democratic character of the institution.”
Prayer for Relief
The petitioners have urged the Court to recall or reconsider the August 4 order, take the pending reports on record, and afford them a meaningful hearing before finalizing any co-option criteria. They have specifically requested that the Court consider their electoral performance—having secured the 6th and 7th positions—as part of any fair and objective mechanism.
The signatories to the petition include women advocates from Delhi, Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Jharkhand, Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand, West Bengal, Maharashtra, Rajasthan, and Punjab & Haryana.
The women candidates at 6th and 7th postion should be the only, logical and the right choice for filling up remaing two seats at BCD.
ReplyDeleteAnd on what basis have you decided that sir? Any valid reason?
Delete