On September 17, 2024 (Yesterday), the Supreme Court (SC) of India issued a notice in a PIL (Public Interest Litigation), filed by a top court lawyer and member of the Supreme Court Bar Association MG Yogamaya, seeking proportional representation of women, queer community, differently abled and reserved category persons in the Bar Council of India (BCI) and State Bar Councils. During the hearing, Senior Advocate PV Dinesh who appeared for the petitioners submitted that currently there are zero women representatives at the Bar Council of India. The petitioner also highlighted that the situation across various state bar councils including Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh, Gujarat, Andhra Pradesh, and Rajasthan is similar to the BCI, having no women representative. The PIL also contended that only 4 state Bar councils of the states namely Tamil Nadu, Bihar, Telangana, and Madhya Pradesh have women representation.
The petitioner further referred to Section 3(2) of the Advocates Act, 1961, and said that the term ‘proportional representation’ should be construed to ‘as a proportional representation of the unrepresented categories’. Section 3(2) of the Act states that “in the case of a State Bar Council with an electorate not exceeding five thousand, fifteen members, in the case of a State Bar Council with an electorate exceeding five thousand but not exceeding ten thousand, twenty members, and in the case of the State Bar Council with an electorate exceeding ten thousand, twenty-five members, elected in accordance with the system of proportional representation by means of the single transferable vote from amongst advocates on the electoral roll of the State Bar Council.”
The PIL also highlighted that the expensive nature of campaigning for Bar Council elections hinders the participation of women and other disadvantaged sections. The PIL reads, “Many lady lawyers are not able to contest the Bar Council elections as the campaigning for Bar Council Elections is highly politicized and can be expensive and time-consuming, requiring extensive networking and resources. Many of the members of the Bar Council have been preparing for contesting elections at the cost of their practice. Therefore, it is highly necessary that this Hon’ble Court may pass appropriate directions to regulate the Bar Council election process so that many meritorious professional lawyers, who are not full-time politicians, can spare their time for the benefit of the administration of justice.” It also refers to the recent efforts made by the judiciary to address gender equality and the marginalization of disadvantaged groups. The PIL also states, “The inadequate representation influences the decision-making process of the Bar Council of India & State Bar Councils. Despite existence of these bodies, many a time, the judiciary has advocated for construction of toilets, effective mechanism for addressing sexual harassment cases, establishment of crèche in court premises, etc. If there is adequate representation of unrepresented segments, many of such issues can be dealt with more effectively, which will find place in the agenda of such representative bodies.”
After hearing the contentions, the Supreme Court bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra issued notice in the matter. While issuing notice, the CJI noted that the nature of proportional representation sought in this PIL is similar to that of Rajya Sabha elections. The main reliefs sought by the petitioner are to issue directions to reserve seats for women, queer community, specially-abled persons, and persons from marginalized communities till appropriate legislation is made and to declare that the proportional representation under Section 3(2)(b) of the Advocate's Act, 1961 means and includes proportional representation of women, queer community, specially-abled persons and persons from the marginalized communities to the State Bar Council, and also Bar Council of India or in the alternative.