The Delhi High Court rejected a plea seeking reservation for lawyers with under ten years’ practice in Bar Council of Delhi elections. It held that granting such relief would result in impermissible complete reservation, violating provisions of the Advocates Act.
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court has rejected an appeal seeking reservation of six seats in the Bar Council of Delhi (BCD) elections for lawyers with under ten years of practice.
A bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela held that such a measure would amount to an impermissible total reservation of all posts.
Of the 23 elected BCD members, 12 seats are allocated to advocates with more than ten years’ practice, and five seats are reserved for women lawyers.
The Court said,
“In any event, the relief sought by the Appellant cannot be granted since a complete reservation for all the posts of BCD is not permissible. The 50% reservation for advocates with more than ten years of practice, as stipulated in Section 3(2)(b) of the Advocates Act, together with the 30% reservation for women advocates directed by the Supreme Court in Yogamaya MG v Union of India & Ors, must not be construed to imply that the remaining 20% positions are reserved for advocates with less than ten years of experience. Such an interpretation would lead to complete reservation for all posts, which is inconsistent with the provisions of the Advocates Act,”
The bench concurred with the single judge’s finding that the appellant had no vested right to demand reservation of the leftover seats for advocates with under ten years’ experience. The court observed that such a demand cannot be accommodated within the framework of the Advocates Act or the Constitution of India.
The appellant, Advocate Ramesh Chandra Singh, who enrolled with the BCD in 2022, contested the February 2026 elections. He noted that the BCD notification for 23 members set aside 12 seats for advocates with at least ten years’ practice and five for women candidates.
He argued that the remaining six seats should be reserved for advocates with less than ten years’ practice and contended that failing to do so violated their right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution.
The single judge had dismissed the plea, holding that reservation for senior advocates and women does not create a vested entitlement for advocates with under ten years’ experience.
The Division Bench has now affirmed that decision.
Advocate Ramesh Chandra Singh appeared in person. Advocates Preetpal Singh, Tanupreet Kaur, Medha Sharma, Simran Kumar, Pooja and Gaurav represented the Bar Council of India.
Case Title: Ramesh Chandra Singh v Bar Council of Delhi
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE