The Chief Justice of India wants “an effective representation to women, not a lip service”, and the Supreme Court has asked the Attorney General to examine objections to Women’s Reservation In State Bar Councils.
New Delhi: Objections to the Supreme Court’s directions reserving seats for women advocates in State Bar Councils have been placed before the Attorney General for India for examination. The Court on Tuesday (October 27) said the matter will be listed after two weeks, once the Attorney General has looked into the issue [Re: Objections to Women’s Reservation in State Bar Councils].
The Bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant heard Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, who argued that reservation for women is laudable, but must come through the statute and over and above the 25 members the Advocates Act, 1961 provides for.
What the CJI would not accept
On Singh’s submission, all 25 members must be elected by single transferable vote, yet the process had stopped after 18 because six seats were reserved. He suggested adding six women as supernumerary members above 25, to preserve the statutory scheme, and said they could be conferred with all the powers of Bar Council members.
The CJI did not accept this:
“We want an effective representation to women, not a lip service.”
Rejecting the supernumerary model, the CJI said:
“That is not acceptable to me in the matter of representation. Let the AG examine this. List after two weeks.”
Singh’s objections
State Bar Councils, Singh told the Bench, are constituted under the Advocates Act, and a representation had been made on which no decision had been taken. The Bench remarked that accepting his prayer would require an amendment to the law.
His proposal was that 25 members be elected under the statutory process, with six women members added to take the total to 31. Article 142, he argued, cannot amend a statute or act contrary to its express language. Citing Section 3(2)(b), he pointed out that a State Bar Council has 15 members for an electorate of up to 5,000, 20 for over 5,000 and up to 10,000, and 25 for over 10,000, elected by proportional representation through the single transferable vote.
Singh said the 25 seats had effectively been reduced to 18; the CJI replied that 25 had been retained. Asked where the statute provides for reservation, the CJI said it does not bar reservation. Singh called women’s reservation laudable but said it must be statutory and above 25 members. The CJI observed that women’s representation is also achieved through proportional representation, a use of the single transferable vote that Singh disputed.
How far Article 142 reaches
The Bench asked whether the strength should be raised to accommodate 30 per cent. Creating six or seven additional seats, the CJI said, would also invoke Article 142; Singh replied that it would not affect the existing statutory scheme.
In oral observations, the CJI said the Court may then have to do away with reservation. He disagreed, however, that a statute can control the Court’s power, and distinguished between enabling, mandatory and prohibitory provisions. Article 142 cannot override an express prohibition, he said, but where a statute sets conditions without barring additional ones, the Court can exercise its powers. He cited the evolution of an independent basis for divorce under Article 142.
Singh responded that irretrievable breakdown of marriage was a divorce ground added by the Court. When the Bench referred to its directions on SC/ST certificates, he said those did not violate the statutory scheme. The Bench observed that those directions came before the statute occupied the field; Singh agreed, saying that where the field is unoccupied, the Court can intervene and iron out difficulties without disturbing the statute.
The Bench said it had not disturbed the statute on the number of members. “With respect, the statute has been disturbed,” Singh replied.
How the directions came about
The directions at issue date from December 8, 2025. A Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, hearing pleas by advocates including Yogamaya M.G. and Shehla Chaudhary, directed that 30 per cent of seats in State Bar Councils where elections had not begun should go to women advocates, with 20 per cent filled by election and 10 per cent by co-option for the current year. In January 2026 the Court extended the 30 per cent reservation to the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana elections and requested the Attorney General to assist on enhancing the strength of State Bar Councils.
The strength of the councils then became the flashpoint. On September 2, 2026, hearing a plea to raise the seats in the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa, the Court asked the Attorney General to treat the petition as a representation and decide it in consultation with the State Bar Council. On September 25 it said that order would apply across the country, in a plea seeking to raise the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu from 25 to 32 members.
On October 1, in a plea by a Bar Council of Delhi candidate who missed election narrowly, Senior Advocate Vikas Singh contended that Article 142 cannot be used to pass an order contrary to the statutory scheme, and the Court again requested the Attorney General to consider the matter.
No ruling has been made on the objections. Whether the reserved seats should sit within the statutory 25 or be added over and above them is now with the Attorney General for examination, and the matter returns after two weeks.
Case Title: Re: Objections to Women’s Reservation in State Bar Councils (case number not available)
Bench: Bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Supreme Court of India
Date of Hearing: October 27, 2026
Appearances: Senior Advocate Vikas Singh raised the objections