Hearing a writ petition by a Bar Council of Delhi election candidate who missed election by a fraction of a vote, the Supreme Court has requested the Attorney General to consider increasing the 25-member limit on State Bar Councils under the Advocates Act, saying it is conscious of its judicial limits and that it will consider the matter if the Attorney General takes a contrary view.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday requested the Attorney General for India, R. Venkataramani, to consider a plea for increasing the statutory limit on the strength of State Bar Councils, which stands at 25 members under Section 3(2)(b) of the Advocates Act, 1961 [Rohit Pandey v. Union of India].
A Bench of Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana passed the order on October 1, 2026 on a writ petition filed through Advocate-on-Record Nikhil Jain, being W.P. (C) No. 1218 of 2026.
The petitioner’s case
The petitioner, Rohit Pandey, argues that the 25-member cap was fixed when the Advocates Act was enacted in 1961, and that the electorate has since grown substantially. He points out that the Bar Council of Delhi alone now has about 2 lakh registered advocates, which, he says, calls for adequate and proportionate representation in the elected body.
Pandey contested this year’s Bar Council of Delhi elections and secured 2,259 votes, falling short by 63.5 votes of being among the 25 elected members. He states that, because of the Supreme Court’s direction reserving 30 per cent representation for women advocates in State Bar Councils, a woman candidate who had secured only 265 votes was declared elected. According to his plea, her declaration as an elected member is contrary to the 1961 Act.
Article 142 and the statutory scheme
Supplementing the petitioner’s submissions, Senior Advocate Vikas Singh and other senior advocates contended that Article 142 of the Constitution cannot be used to pass a judicial order that runs contrary to the statutory scheme. After these brief submissions, the Bench passed an order similar to the one it had passed on September 2.
Justice Bagchi, while dictating the order, said:
“We are absolutely aware of the judicial limitation, and that’s why requesting the Attorney General.”
The Court said orally that if the Attorney General takes a contrary view, it will consider the matter.
Background of the case
On September 2, 2026, while hearing a writ petition on increasing the number of seats in the Bar Councils of Maharashtra and Goa, the Court observed that the issue involves a policy decision, and asked the Attorney General to treat the petition as a representation and take appropriate decisions in consultation with the State Bar Councils. In a later petition on the need to increase the seats in the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu to accommodate 30 per cent representation for women, the Bench clarified that its September 2 order would apply across the country.
The reservation itself flows from the Supreme Court’s decision of December 8, 2025 in Yogamaya M.G. v. Union of India, which allowed 30 per cent reservation of seats in State Bar Councils for women advocates, with co-option permitted in 10 seats.
Why the order matters
The order treats the cap on the size of State Bar Councils as a matter for the Union, rather than for a judicial direction under Article 142, while leaving open that the Court may step in if the Attorney General takes a contrary view. The Court has not decided the petitioner’s challenge to the declaration of the woman candidate, and the allegations in the petition remain his submissions.
Case Title: Rohit Pandey v. Union of India [W.P. (C) No. 1218 of 2026; Diary No. 57731 of 2026]
Bench: Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana, Supreme Court of India
Date of Order: October 1, 2026
Appearances: Advocate-on-Record Nikhil Jain for the petitioner; Senior Advocate Vikas Singh and other senior advocates also made submissions