Today, On 27th January, The Supreme Court refused to entertain a plea seeking SC/ST reservation in Bar Councils, saying petitioners must approach authorities first. “Just because Court did something for women, you come! You just want it on a platter!” Bench remarked.
The Supreme Court declined to consider a petition requesting reservations for Scheduled Caste (SC) and Scheduled Tribe (ST) lawyers in State Bar Councils.
A bench consisting of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justices R. Mahadevan and Joymalya Bagchi noted that the petition was submitted after the announcement of State Bar Council elections, indicating that it was too late to seek such reservations for the ongoing elections.
The petitioner argued that, following Supreme Court intervention, women lawyers were granted reservations in State Bar Councils, despite the Advocates Act of 1961 being silent on this matter.
CJI Kant remarked,
“You are everywhere. In the judiciary, among lawyers, in Parliament… Bar Council has been there since 1961… and you did nothing. Just because the Supreme Court did something for women now… you come now! You just want it on a platter!”
Clarifying the Court’s earlier decisions, the Bench stressed that no reservation had been offered to women lawyers, only a requirement for their representation.
CJI Kant stated,
“We have not provided reservation for women… it is only representation,”
He further noted that the relief granted to women lawyers resulted from prolonged litigation and criticized the petitioners for approaching the court only after the election process had commenced.
The Bench advised the petitioners to first seek resolution from the appropriate authorities before returning to the Court if their grievances were not addressed.
CJI Kant said,
“Women started fighting in our court for the last two years. At last, they succeeded… You also approach authorities and then come here. You have come to court when elections are announced. You thought you would claim something and get what has been extended to women members,”
He added,
“You can approach us for the next election.”
The Court ultimately closed the plea, allowing the petitioners to first reach out to the competent statutory authorities with their representation.
The Bench stated,
“Take representation of our earlier order and show authorities. I am sure they will take it up considering the number of members are there now… but if you don’t hear back… we will take a call then,”
The Court expressed hope that the competent authorities would adequately address the issue.
The Court’s order concluded,
“Petitioner at liberty to approach the competent authority. We are hopeful that the appropriate competent authority will consider and take a decision. We are hopeful that representation will draw adequate attention of the authorities,”
In December 2025, the Supreme Court directed that 30 percent representation for women lawyers in State Bar Councils was “non-negotiable” and mandated that any shortfall be addressed through co-option.
The Court has also supported initiatives to enhance participation of specially-abled lawyers in Bar Council elections, leading the Bar Council of India to reduce nomination fees for such candidates.
Case Title: Ram Kumar Gautam and ors v. Union of India