A Supreme Court order dated September 2, 2026, uploaded on November 7, records a sequence for reconstituting State Bar Councils: complete the co-option of women members, notify each Council’s composition, and then elect its office-bearers and representative to the Bar Council of India. The order also records counsel’s assurance that the Attorney General and Solicitor General would participate in policy-making until the new BCI was constituted.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court’s newly uploaded September 2 order in M. Varadhan v. Union of India & Others, heard with Yogamaya M.G. v. Union of India & Others, sets out linked steps for completing the constitution of State Bar Councils and taking forward the reconstitution of the Bar Council of India (BCI).
The Bench comprised Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana. The official upload is dated November 7, but the directions were made on September 2. The time periods in the order therefore belong to that earlier proceeding; the upload does not restart them.
Co-option before notification
In paragraphs 1 to 3, the Court identified the composition of the State Bar Councils and the BCI under the Advocates Act, 1961, as the core issue. It recorded that State Bar Council elections had been conducted pursuant to earlier orders and recalled the arrangement for 30% representation of women: 20% through election and 10% through co-option.
The Bench referred to its August 4 order entrusting the Chief Justices of the jurisdictional High Courts, in consultation with the newly elected Council members, with nominating two women members, preferably former women High Court judges or senior women members of the Bar.
Paragraph 4 requested the Chief Justices to complete co-option within two weeks. The composition of the newly elected State Bar Councils was then to be notified within one week. The Court explained that completing co-option would enable the Councils’ composition to be formally notified and remove uncertainty.
Office-bearers and BCI representatives
The next stage was addressed in paragraph 5. Each newly constituted State Bar Council was directed to elect its Chairperson, Vice-Chairperson, other statutorily prescribed office-bearers and its representative to the BCI within two weeks of notification of its composition.
The order tied the BCI representative’s election to Section 4(1)(c) of the Advocates Act, under which each State Bar Council elects a member from among its own members. This made notification of the Council’s composition the starting point for the election deadline.
All State Bar Councils were directed to file compliance reports. Under paragraphs 6 and 7, the Court would consider the issue of constituting the BCI under Section 4 after receiving those reports.
Law officers’ participation recorded
In paragraph 8, the Court recorded a statement by Senior Advocates Maninder Singh and S. Guru Krishna Kumar, appearing for the BCI and its office-bearers, that the Attorney General and Solicitor General would be actively associated with policy-making before the new BCI was constituted. This passage records counsel’s assurance; it is not a finding that any particular earlier BCI policy decision was unlawful.
The Bench issued notice to all State Bar Councils and fixed September 23, 2026, to await the first compliance regarding co-option and constitution of the Councils. The September 2 document is an interlocutory order, not a final disposal of the petitions, and does not establish whether the directed steps were subsequently completed.
Case Titles: M. Varadhan v. Union of India & Others, with Yogamaya M.G. v. Union of India & Others
Case Numbers: W.P.(C) No. 1049/2026 and W.P.(C) No. 1092/2026
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana
Order Date: September 2, 2026
Official Upload: November 7, 2026, 9:43:04 AM
Outcome: Timelines for co-option, notification and elections; compliance reports directed; notice issued. Proceedings continued.