New Delhi: While the Supreme Court’s direction for 30 percent reservation for women in the legal profession’s governing bodies has been universally welcomed, there are concerns over whether State Bar Councils will comply.
In a major step toward improving women’s representation in the governing bodies, the Supreme Court Monday ordered 30 percent seats be reserved for women in State Bar Councils; 20 percent seats be filled through direct election, while 10 percent may be filled through co-option where elected representation falls short.
State Bar Councils must also submit co-option proposals if eligible women candidates are insufficient.
The Supreme Court’s push for 30 percent women representation in State Bar Councils is being hailed as a long-overdue corrective in the legal profession. Yet senior women advocates warn that without clear compliance timelines, transparent co-option processes, and accountability for councils that delay polls, the reform may remain on paper, becoming a tool for tokenism. They also call for monitoring and supervision by the Supreme Court.
Advocate Yogamay MG, one of the petitioners, noted a real risk of compliance being taken for granted. “There is a real risk of delay or dilution” as some State Bar Councils may try to postpone elections or create procedural hurdles, she said.
The Bar Council of India (BCI) can coordinate, “its political nature and internal interests may make sole monitoring ineffective”, Yogamaya MG said.
According to her, a joint monitoring system—periodic compliance reports to the Supreme Court, with the BCI handling execution—would ensure uniform, delay-free implementation.
On challenges, Senior Advocate Mahalakshmi Pavani listed risks of “token co-option, geographic disparities in women’s numbers and resistance and backlash from entrenched power groups”.
She urged robust implementation and expressed faith in BCI leadership to ensure compliance: “This order is a powerful key; now the lock must be turned.”
Advocate Pragya Baghel, secretary of the SCBA raised a pertinent question of bias and reservation backlash. “People may think you came only via reservation”, she said.
Proxy candidates?
Dr. Charu Mathur, counsel for petitioner, responding to concerns about women not being real leaders, lauded this step as, “Women will be more resilient—and at least the doors are now open”.
But Nandini Gore, senior partner at Karanjawala & Co Advocates— who was instrumental in getting sanitary napkin vending machines installed in the SC in 2017—fears that with this reservation “it could lead to the development of proxy candidates. The wives, the sisters, the mothers, and daughters of well-established members of the Bar Council.” While she hopes that such a scenario does not arise, she fears this is “a practical hurdle in this scheme. If such a situation does arise, it would reduce these elected women to mere puppets.”
Advocate Miriam Fozia Rahman, who was the petitioner for women’s reservation in the Delhi High Court Bar Association warned that practical challenges—resistance from existing members, transition issues, tokenism—must be addressed with a clear implementation plan and sensitisation: “Real change is when women have a voice in decision-making processes.”
The order stems from petitions by women advocates seeking mandatory representation under the Advocates Act, 1961, which establishes Bar Councils as statutory regulatory bodies that licence lawyers, set professional standards, handle disciplinary proceedings, and oversee legal education. Elections are generally held every five years through a secret ballot.
In contrast, Bar associations are voluntary bodies focused on welfare and member support but do not regulate the profession.
Earlier, in May 2024, during the Supreme Court Bar Association elections, the court mandated 33 percent reservation for women in Supreme Court Bar association (SCBA) posts. Following this, SCBA conducted a first-of-its-kind survey of 301 women lawyers, documenting work–life challenges, gender bias, and lack of leadership pathways.
Now, the court has extended gender-inclusion measures from voluntary associations to statutory councils, which control enrollment, disciplinary powers, and policy decisions nationwide.
Gender gap at the Bar Council level
Data before the court showed that across 18 State Bar Councils, only 9 of 441 elected members are women—barely 2 percent. Notably, 11 Bar Councils have no women members at all.
Calling this situation “severe” and “structurally exclusionary”, petitioners argued that the current composition violates the constitutional guarantee of equality and fails to reflect the rising number of women joining the profession.
The court clarified that elections already notified—in Andhra Pradesh, Punjab & Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, Telangana, Bihar, and Chhattisgarh—will not be disrupted. Yet, it “urged adequate representation through the ballot” in these states.
“For the remaining Bar Councils, 30 percent seats shall be represented by women advocates,” the Bench directed, adding that co-option should ensure full compliance if women hesitate to contest.
Advocate Yogamaya noted that “the Supreme Court should supervise implementation at least for the first cycle”. On 18 November, she recalled, the Supreme Court constituted a high-powered supervisory committee headed by a retired apex court judge to oversee elections in 16 state bar councils.
Every such bar body should have a new elected body in place by 31 March 2026, as per Court’s directives, she added.
‘Women will stay and shape policy if given opportunities’
Advocate Pragya Baghel linked the ruling to the recent SCBA survey findings showing 85 percent women advocates aspire to leadership if given access: “They can improve the system—whether crèche facilities or part-time work—so that more women sustain the profession.”
The survey found that women drop out after 5–6 years due to lack of support; “more women in councils can improve mediation, legal aid, and welfare”, she said.
Baghel, who is Secretary of SCBA flagged bias and reservation backlash. “People may think you came only via reservation. Before reservation, I competed on merit against men,” she said.
She also warned that voters may avoid electing more women once quota numbers are met: “In SCBA, members are reduced from 10 to 7 due to reservation—creating problems.”
Mahalakshmi Pavani, the first woman senior advocate from Karnataka and SCWLA President, said, “I have waited for this historic moment. This is a landmark correction—upholding Articles 14 and 15. When bodies governing the profession have less than 5 percent women, legitimacy and perspective suffer.”
She praised Advocate Yogamaya for initiating the process and Senior Advocate Shobha Gupta for leading its legal journey.
Pavani emphasised dismantling the old boys’ club: “The court has sent an unambiguous message: Passive inclusion is not enough; active, institutional parity is essential.”
She highlighted four major effects of the order—women in enrollment, discipline, infrastructure decisions; breaking of exclusionary leadership; role modeling and setting a precedent for other male-dominated professional bodies.
Structural change, Pavani said, will allow “creches, flexible work, strong POSH committees, and a shift in the perception of merit”.
Advocate Gore, who is also an Advocate-on-Record at the SC recalls that in 2023, in response to a question in the Rajya Sabha, the erstwhile Minister of Law and Justice, Kiren Rijiju, had replied that of all the advocates enrolled in India, only about 15 percent were women. “This statistic was no surprise to me, but I remember it vividly since it quantified all the fear, and second thoughts that women have before entering litigation,” she said.
“Clearly, litigation is not inclusive. To make litigation more inclusive, we need to create a welcoming environment for women. There can be multiple ways to achieve this, but I believe the most effective way to achieve this would be to place women themselves in the driving seat. How do we do it? By voting them to the Bar Council,” Gore added.
However, according to her, it is important we temper our expectations, adding, “reservation can never be a replacement for open elections. In fact, if anything, the need for reservation is proof of a broken system, which has consistently failed women lawyers. The present reservation can at best act as a crutch, but if we truly need to run, we would need to soon drop it. In its place we would need a paradigm shift.”
Advocate Miriam Fozia Rahman, who petitioned for women’s reservation in the Delhi High Court Bar Association, said: “This is a significant step toward representation and inclusivity. It acknowledges women’s contributions and a historical imbalance.”
She said women leaders bring a diverse governance approach, prioritising mentorship and family-friendly policies and “their presence can shatter the glass ceiling and inspire more women”.
‘Practical challenges’
Rahman warned that practical challenges—resistance from existing members, transition issues, tokenism—must be addressed with a clear implementation plan and sensitisation: “Real change is when women have a voice in decision-making processes.”
Advocate Vani Singhal called the order transformative: “Despite growing participation, women in leadership remain grossly inadequate. This can break gender barriers and ensure representative decision-making.”
She said women leaders bring perspectives informed by lived discrimination. “Their presence promotes ethical standards and encourages more women to aspire and remain in the profession,” she said.
Singhal identified hurdles including power structures resisting change, gender bias and harassment, lack of mentorship and childcare, opaque appointment systems that will be detrimental for marginalised women.
(Edited by Viny Mishra)
Also read: No PoSH for women lawyers? SC to hear plea against order depriving them of sexual harassment shield