New Delhi, Apr 13 (PTI) The Supreme Court on Monday said the high-powered election supervisory committee headed by former apex court judge Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia will determine the manner in which women candidates are to be co-opted in state bar council elections to fulfil the 30 per cent representation mandate.
The top court, in December 2023, had ordered that 30 per cent representation in state bar councils be provided to women lawyers. To address contingencies where an insufficient number of women are elected, the bench had allowed for a “co-option” mechanism to fill up to 10 per cent of those seats.
A bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant had set up the high-powered election supervisory committee comprising Justice Dhulia, Justice Ravi Shankar Jha (former chief justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court) and senior advocate V Giri to supervise the state bar council elections and other related issues.
On Monday, a bench, also comprising Justice Joymalya Bagchi, addressed the concerns over the potential “misuse” of reservation provisions while hearing a petition alleging that the lack of clarity regarding “co-option” may be exploited.
It was argued that the provision regarding co-option is being misinterpreted.
Senior lawyer D S Naidu said in states like Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, several women candidates contested and won seats in the “open category”, outperforming their male counterparts.
Naidu contended that co-option should only be a last resort when no contesting women are available.
“The unintended consequence is that those who took the trouble of contesting are being marginalised,” he said.
Naidu said allowing bar councils to recommend names for co-option rather than choosing from the pool of unsuccessful contesting candidates would result in “mayhem”.
Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for an intervenor, said recent rules framed by the Bar Council of India (BCI) had proposed that it would handle the co-option process in consultation with bar associations.
He said this approach would open a “Pandora’s box” and potentially violate Section 3(2)(b) of the Advocates Act, which stipulates that members must be chosen through proportional representation via a single transferable vote.
The CJI acknowledged that the ambiguity in its previous order regarding the “mode and manner” of the 10 per cent co-option had led to the present dispute.
The bench noted methods for co-option and they included selecting from contesting women candidates who secured the highest votes among those not elected or leaving the decision to the state bar councils or the BCI or allowing the state election committee to conduct the exercise.
The bench said the Justice Dhulia Committee is best equipped to evaluate the merits and demerits of these options.
“The committee is requested to take a decision after consulting all stakeholders,” the bench said while appreciating Justice Dhulia committee’s ongoing work in overseeing the bar council elections. PTI SJK ABA SJK KSS KSS
This report is auto-generated from PTI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.