The Supreme Court has issued notice to the Bar Council of India (BCI) on a plea seeking representation for persons with disabilities. The Court will consider concerns over reservation, nomination fees, and the timing of Bar Council elections.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court issued notice to the Bar Council of India (BCI) on a plea seeking the inclusion and representation of persons with disabilities in the BCI, raising concerns over accessibility, nomination fees, and the timing of upcoming Bar Council elections.
The matter was mentioned before a Bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, where Senior Advocate Indira Jaising pressed for urgent consideration of an interlocutory application (IA) concerning Tamil Nadu. Jaising emphasised that the plea must be decided before the Bar Council of India announces its elections, warning that any delay could render the prayer infructuous.
What Plea Seeks for Persons with Disabilities
Appearing for the petitioners, Jaising highlighted two key issues:
- Reservation for persons with disabilities in the Bar Council of India
- High nomination fees, which act as a barrier to participation by advocates with disabilities
“There is an IA on board concerning Tamil Nadu. We are seeking a decision before the Bar Council elections are announced,”
Jaising submitted.
She further argued that without intervention, the rights of persons with disabilities to meaningful representation in professional bodies would be compromised.
Responding to the submissions, CJI Surya Kant observed that earlier, registration fees were payable at the time of enrolment as per the BCI schedule, which has not been revised over the years.
“While the fees have now been significantly reduced, the BCI says it is facing a financial crunch and has no funds to conduct elections,”
the Chief Justice noted.
CJI Surya Kant acknowledged the importance of the issue, stating that inclusivity and meaningful representation were matters of “paramount importance.”
“Their representation must be meaningfully felt. We are speaking today of inclusivity and a pragmatic approach,”
the CJI observed.
The Court suggested that the BCI could even consider online consultations and asked it to file an affidavit if it proposed increasing one or two seats for PwDs.
Taking note of the concerns raised, the Bench issued notice to the Bar Council of India and directed that the matter be listed for hearing on January 5.
When Jaising reiterated that the declaration of elections before the next hearing would defeat the purpose of the plea, the CJI assured that the Court would address the issue in coordination with related matters.
“Let us interact with the BCI in a connected matter and then see,”
the CJI said.
Responding to the Court, the Bar Council of India submitted that while registration fees were earlier fixed under a BCI schedule, which has not been revised, fees had now been significantly reduced. However, the BCI claimed it was facing a financial crunch and lacked sufficient funds to conduct elections.
BCI Chairman Manan Kumar further stated that persons with disabilities constitute only about 0.1% of the total population, prompting debate in court.
Another counsel raised concerns that granting reservations to PwDs could open the door for other groups, including transgender persons, to seek similar benefits.
The CJI firmly rejected this reasoning, reiterating the constitutional need for substantive equality and inclusive representation.
Advocate Vivek Narayan Sharma suggested that one member from the PwD category could be co-opted into the BCI. The proposal was welcomed by the Court.
“That is a very good initiative. Such efforts must be strengthened to build an inclusive societal framework,”
the CJI remarked.
Jaising also pointed out that women already benefit from a court-mandated reservation, whereas persons with disabilities continue to face exclusion through fees, election processes, and lack of representation.
The BCI Chairman informed the Court that an affidavit had already been filed, requesting that it need not be discussed in open court and could be considered while passing orders.
READ LIVE COVERAGE
Read More Reports On Persons with Disabilities
