A Bench comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra sought a response from the centre on the matter.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court issued a notice in response to a public interest litigation (PIL) highlighting the inadequate representation of women, queer individuals, persons with disabilities, and marginalized communities in the Bar Council of India (BCI) and State Bar Councils.
The petitioner, Yogamaya M.G., a member of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA), urged the Court to recognize and address this disproportionate representation.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra sought a response from the Union of India on the matter. During the hearing, Senior Advocate PV Dinesh, representing the petitioner, presented data from various state bar councils and emphasized that there was no representation from these groups.
READ ALSO: PIL Challenges ‘Samvidhaan Hatya Diwas’ Notification| Allahabad High Court
The petition, filed by AoR Shyam D. Nandan, argues that although the Advocates Act, 1961 outlines the framework for bar councils, there has been no legislative action to ensure fair representation for marginalized groups.
The petitioner asserts that this underrepresentation breaches the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 15, 16, and 21 of the Indian Constitution, which advocate for equality and prohibit discrimination. The petition includes data from various state bar councils, highlighting that councils in Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Uttar Pradesh, Punjab, and Haryana lack women members.
It suggests that Section 3(2) of the Advocates Act, which addresses “proportional representation” in state bar councils, should be interpreted to mandate the inclusion of women, queer individuals, persons with disabilities, and other marginalized communities.
The PIL highlighted how patriarchal norms and the costly, politicized nature of Bar Council elections limit the participation of women and other marginalized groups. It notes that many professional lawyers, particularly women, struggle to balance their legal practice with family duties, which hampers their involvement in election campaigns.
The petition argues that the high cost and extensive networking required for campaigning, combined with the impact on legal practice, prevent many capable lawyers from participating. It calls on the Court to issue directions to reform the Bar Council election process, making it more accessible for skilled lawyers who are not career politicians.
READ ALSO: PIL Challenges Exclusion of Disabled Persons from Judicial Appointments
The PIL also addresses recent judicial efforts to combat gender inequality and the marginalization of disadvantaged groups. It cites landmark cases such as NALSA v. Union of India (2014) and Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997), which emphasize the need for affirmative action across various fields, including the legal profession.
The petition highlights successful legislative measures like the 73rd Constitutional Amendment, which mandates reservations for women in local governance. It notes that although Bar Councils are tasked with regulating the legal profession, their male-dominated composition often neglects issues relevant to women and other underrepresented groups, such as gender-neutral facilities, crèche services, and sexual harassment redressal mechanisms in court settings.
The petition calls for the Court to issue directions to make the Bar Council election process more inclusive and accessible to women and marginalized communities. It argues that such reforms would lead to a more equitable legal profession and improve the administration of justice.
The PIL states,
“The inadequate representation affects the decision-making processes of the Bar Council of India and State Bar Councils. Despite the presence of these bodies, the judiciary has often advocated for improvements such as toilet facilities, effective sexual harassment mechanisms, and crèches in court premises. Greater representation of underrepresented groups would address these issues more effectively and ensure they are prioritized by these representative bodies.”
Case Title: Yogamaya M.G v. Union of India
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
