Today, On 13th November, The Supreme Court decided to review a video of the Delhi High Court Bar Association (DHCBA) meeting where a proposal for women’s quota was rejected. During the hearing, the Court questioned, “We would like to see, did any of you even discuss the Constitutional ethos?” The Court’s remarks reflect concerns over the rejection of the proposal and its alignment with constitutional principles. The video examination will provide further insight into the decision-making process.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court expressed its intention to review the video recording of a Delhi High Court Bar Association (DHCBA) meeting where a proposal to reserve DHCBA positions for women lawyers was rejected.
The Bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan clarified that the Court would examine whether the proposal was rejected after thorough deliberations and discussions.
Justice Kant remarked,
“Delhi’s is among the leading bars in the country to understand Constitutional ethos. We are to see— they must have deliberated on that how they discussed the Constitutional scheme. That we will see… You are the cream of legal luminaries and reflect the cosmopolitan culture of the bar. We would like to see, did any of you even discuss the Constitutional ethos?”
The Court was reviewing petitions regarding the reservation of positions for women within the Delhi High Court Bar Association (DHCBA), with some petitions advocating for a 33 percent quota for women in bar associations across Delhi.
In September, the Court had encouraged the DHCBA to allocate 4 out of 10 positions on its Executive Committee (EC) for women.
However, during a recent general body meeting (GBM) of the DHCBA, proposals supporting the reservation of posts for women on the EC were not approved.
During today’s Supreme Court hearing, Senior Advocate Meenakshi Arora, representing the petitioners, criticized the manner in which the reservation resolutions were rejected by the Delhi High Court Bar Association (DHCBA).
Arora argued,
“It is really unfortunate what happened. Their (DHCBA) affidavit is totally negative and in brazen non-compliance. They are justifying it by saying it’s because campaigning has started,”
Justice Surya Kant, in a lighter tone, advised Arora not to become emotionally charged.
Meanwhile, Arora’s arguments were strongly opposed by DHCBA’s counsel, Senior Advocate Vijay Hansaria, and DHCBA President, Mohit Mathur.
Read Also: ‘33% Women Quota in Local Polls’| SC Praises Nagaland, Closes Contempt Case
Hansaria claimed,
“Lordships’ order was for us to have a general body meeting, but using that, they got all the (bar) elections (in Delhi) postponed!”
Arora shot back,
“You hijacked the whole executive committee meeting anyway, do not hijack me here now!”
The Court then inquired whether the meeting had been videographed and requested a copy of the recording.
Adjourning the matter until November 18, the Court remarked,
“Display it here. We want to see the kind of deliberations and discussions that took place at the meeting,”
The elections for the Bar Council of Delhi and all bar associations in the national capital, originally scheduled for October 19, have been postponed to December 13 by the Delhi High Court due to the ongoing litigation before the Supreme Court.