The issue arose after confusion regarding a 10-year experience requirement for certain posts reserved for women lawyers, including the Treasurer’s post. Addressing the matter, the Court specified that this eligibility condition does not apply to the Treasurer’s post in district bar associations.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India today (7th Jan) has provided clarity on its earlier order mandating reservations for women lawyers in Delhi’s bar associations.
The issue arose after confusion regarding a 10-year experience requirement for certain posts reserved for women lawyers, including the Treasurer’s post. Addressing the matter, the Court specified that this eligibility condition does not apply to the Treasurer’s post in district bar associations.
Senior Advocate Sonia Mathur mentioned the issue before a bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and N. Kotiswar Singh. She highlighted that two interlocutory applications had been filed, seeking clarification of the Court’s December 19, 2024, order.
According to Mathur, the Returning Officer was misinterpreting certain aspects of the ruling.
Considering the urgency, the Supreme Court revisited the main case and issued a clarification. The Court stated:
“In our considered view, there is no vagueness in para 5 of order dt. 19 December, 2024. However, in order to avoid any kind of confusion, it is clarified that for the post of Treasurer earmarked for women candidates in all the District Bar Associations, there is no eligibility condition of 10 yrs. experience prescribed by us.”
On December 19, 2024, the Supreme Court passed an order implementing women’s reservations on an experimental basis.
A Bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan issued the order in response to petitions seeking a 33% quota for women in these legal bodies. As part of the interim arrangement, the Court mandated that the Treasurer position in all bar associations in Delhi be reserved for women.
Earlier, on May 2, the Supreme Court directed that at least one-third of the posts in the Executive Committee (EC) of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) must be reserved for women. For the current year, the Court specified that three executive members, two senior executive members, and the treasurer must be women.
However, the SCBA president’s position is excluded from these reservations. This decision, issued by Justices Surya Kant and KV Viswanathan, emphasized the importance of women’s involvement in the decision-making bodies of the SCBA. It also aligns with a similar matter previously addressed by the Delhi High Court.
In the Delhi High Court Bar Association (DHCBA), one post of Designated Senior Member on the Executive Committee has been allocated for women. Additionally, 30% of the posts in the Executive Committees of district court bar associations in Delhi will be reserved for female members.
To assist with the matter, former Chief Justice of the Manipur High Court, Siddharth Mridul, has been appointed as Amicus Curiae. Justice Mridul will gather data on women’s representation in bar associations nationwide.
Background of the Case
The Supreme Court is hearing multiple petitions seeking reservations for women lawyers in various lawyer bodies in Delhi, including:
- The Bar Council of Delhi (BCD)
- Delhi High Court Bar Association (DHCBA)
- All District Bar Associations
The case began with a notice issued on September 20, 2024. Earlier, the Court had directed the DHCBA to consider reserving the Vice-President’s post for women lawyers in the upcoming elections. The bench expressed disappointment that, since 1962, the DHCBA had not seen a single woman President.
Following the Court’s directive, the DHCBA held a General Body Meeting (GBM) on October 7, 2024. However, members resolved that they were not in favor of reservations for women in the Executive Committee seats. Subsequently, the DHCBA urged the Court to dismiss the petitions and allow the matter to proceed before the Delhi High Court, where it is currently pending.
Case Tite: FOZIA RAHMAN Versus BAR COUNCIL OF DELHI AND ANR., SLP(C) No. 24485/2024 (and connected matters).
Read Previous Hearing
30% Women’s Quota| Supreme Court Orders Reservation in Delhi Bar Associations On Trial Basis
Supreme Court Questions Petitioner in Women’s Bar Quota Case – “She Wants 33% Reservation but Chooses a Male Lawyer”
