New Delhi: In a significant move aimed at correcting the stark gender imbalance in legal governance, the Supreme Court of India on Thursday expressed its clear expectation that the Bar Council of India (BCI) must interpret its existing Rules and framework to ensure that 30% of seats in every State Bar Council are reserved for women members. Importantly, this reservation must also extend to some of the key office-bearer posts.
Exercising its sweeping plenary powers, the Court held that the necessary rule amendments shall be “deemed to have been made”, giving the mandate immediate and binding legal effect.
The order was passed by a Bench comprising Hon’ble the Chief Justice and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Joymalya Bagchi during the hearing of a batch of public interest petitions, including Yogamaya M.G. vs. Union of India & Ors. (W.P. (C) No. 581/2024) and Shehla Chaudhary vs. Union of India & Ors. (W.P. (C) No. 1060/2025).
This direction follows an earlier intervention on 7 November 2025, when the Bench issued notice on a plea filed by advocate Shehla Chaudhary seeking one-third reservation for women in all State Bar Councils and at least one office-bearer post on a rotational basis.
Alarming Underrepresentation of Women Highlighted Before Court
The petitioners presented disturbing data indicating that out of 441 elected representatives across 18 State Bar Councils, only nine are women—a mere 2.04% representation.
The plea also highlighted historical exclusion, noting that since its inception in 1961, the Bar Council of India has not had a single woman member.
Appearing for the petitioners, Senior Advocate Shobha Gupta argued that the electoral structure under the Advocates Act, 1961 entrenches systemic exclusion. She submitted that the expression “proportional representation” in Section 3(2)(b) must be interpreted to include gender representation, failing which women would remain structurally excluded.
Also Read: SC Issues Notice on Plea Seeking One-Third Reservation for Women in State Bar Councils [Read Order]
Urgency Ahead of Upcoming Elections
The petitioners emphasised the urgency of the matter, pointing out that several State Bar Council elections scheduled between January and April 2026, including in Uttar Pradesh and Telangana, are being conducted without any reservation for women—potentially excluding them for yet another five-year term.
Supreme Court’s Strong Words on Gender Parity
After hearing the parties, the Bench stressed the constitutional imperative of ensuring gender representation in legal governance bodies, observing:
“Keeping in view the constitutional ethos, the recent legislative initiatives and the orders passed by this Court from time to time, we expect that the Bar Council of India will construe the existing Rules/framework in such a manner as to ensure that 30% seats in each State Bar Council are occupied by women members.”
To remove any ambiguity on enforceability, the Court further clarified:
“It is clarified that the relevant Rules shall be deemed to have been amended providing for such reservation.”
The Court directed the Bar Council of India to furnish complete details of compliance on the next date of hearing. The matter has been listed for 08.12.2025.
Case Details:
Case Name: Yogamaya M.G. vs. Union of India & Ors.
Writ Petition (Civil) No.: 581/2024
Coram: Hon’ble the Chief Justice and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Joymalya Bagchi
Date of Order: 04-12-2025
Advocates Appearing for Petitioner(s):
Ms. Shobha Gupta, Sr. Adv.; Mr. Deepak Prakash, AOR; Mr. Sriram P., Adv.; Ms. Ritu Bhardwaj, Adv.; Ms. Tarjana Rai, Adv.; Ms. Komal Saini, Adv.; Dr. Charu Mathur, Adv.; Mr. Pulkit Aggarwal, Adv.; Mr. Ansar Ahmad Chaudhary, AOR; Mr. Md. Anas Chaudhary, Adv.; Mr. Mohd. Sharyab Ali, Adv.; Mr. Zahid Ali, Adv.; Ms. Alia Bano Zaidi, Adv.; Ms. Sangita Malhotra, Adv.; Ms. Neema Rani, Adv.; Mr. Prakash Tanwar, Adv.; Mr. Shoaib Ahmad Khan, Adv.; Mr. Sandeep Garausa, Adv.; Ms. Asha Kumari, Adv.; Ms. Purna Deo, Adv.; Mr. Akram Azad, Adv.; Ms. Nitu Kumari, Adv.; Ms. Nimta Passi, Adv.; Ms. Aakanksha Gautam, Adv.; Ms. Rashmi Rekha, Adv.; Ms. Santosh, Adv.; Mr. Pritam Singh, Adv.; Ms. Pallavi Talwar, Adv.
Advocates Appearing for Respondent(s):
Mr. Anuj Udupa, Adv.; Ms. Aastha Singh, Adv.; Mr. Gaurang Bhushan, Adv.; Mr. P.V. Yogeswaran, Adv.; Mr. Aman Mehta, Adv.; Dr. N. Visakamurthy, AOR; Mr. Guru Krishna Kumar, Sr. Adv.; Ms. Radhika Gautam, AOR; Ms. Tatini Basu, AOR; Mr. Byrapaneni Suyodhan, Adv.; Mr. Kumar Shashank, Adv.; Mr. Aljo K. Joseph, Adv.; Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Adv.; Mr. Santhosh Kumar Kolkundra, Adv.; Mr. N. Leela Vara Prasad, Adv.; Mr. Saket Jee, Adv.; Mr. Rohit Kalra, Adv.; Dr. Arvind S. Avhad, AOR; Mr. Jasbir Singh Malik, Adv.; Ms. Prachi Sohi, Adv.; Ms. Pooja Devi, Adv.; Mr. Varun Punia, AOR; Mr. S. Prabakaran, Sr. Adv.; Mr. Manan Kumar Mishra, Adv.; Dr. Ram Sankar, Adv.; Ms. Anjul Dwivedi, Adv.; Mr. Maheswaran Prabakaran, Adv.; Mrs. Usha Prabakaran, Adv.; Ms. Sujatha Bagadhi, Adv.; Mr. S. Anand, Adv.; Mr. Sushant Singh, Adv. (for M/s Ram Sankar & Co., AOR); Ms. Obulapuram Keerthi, Adv.; Mr. Kunal Chatterji, AOR; Ms. Maitrayee Banerjee, Adv.; Mr. Rohit Bansal, Adv.; Mr. Pritam Singh, Adv.; Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Adv.; Mr. Dinesh Bahadur Singh, Adv.; Mr. Mata Prasad Singh, Adv.; Ms. Gitesh Kumari, Adv.
