New Delhi: The Supreme Court has continued to press the Bar Council of India (BCI) to meaningfully address the absence of advocates with disabilities in elected Bar bodies, observing that professional self-regulation cannot remain detached from constitutional commitments to equality, dignity, and inclusion. While the Court has refrained from issuing an immediate mandamus altering notified elections, it has repeatedly emphasised that the issue raises serious constitutional concerns and requires a concrete institutional response rather than prolonged deliberation.
The issue initially arose in Amit Kumar Yadav v. Bar Council of India & Anr., where the petitioner—an advocate with a disability—challenged the complete lack of reservation or representation for persons with disabilities in State Bar Councils and Bar Associations. The petition highlighted that despite statutory recognition of disability rights and constitutional guarantees of equality, advocates with disabilities remain systematically excluded from decision-making bodies governing the legal profession.
In its order dated November 3, 2025, the Supreme Court acknowledged the legitimacy of the grievance but declined to interfere with the electoral process that had already been set in motion. The Bench noted that judicial intervention at that stage would disrupt ongoing elections but simultaneously recognised that the demand for inclusion could not be dismissed as unfounded or premature. The Court observed that while “reservation for persons with disability is essentially a policy matter,” the grievance nonetheless had to be examined through the lens of constitutional equality.
Crucially, the Court directed the Bar Council of India to consider the petitioner’s demand substantively, recording that such consideration must be undertaken “in light of the relevant legislative policies and statutes emanating from the constitutional principles of equality.” The Bench made it clear that the issue of representation of advocates with disabilities is not merely an administrative concern, but one rooted in constitutional and statutory mandates.
The Court further underlined that equality under the Constitution is not confined to formal non-discrimination but extends to ensuring real and effective participation of marginalised groups in institutional governance. While the November order disposed of the writ petition, it left the issue open-ended, signalling that failure on the part of the Bar Council of India to act could invite further judicial scrutiny.
The issue resurfaced in December 2025 during hearings in connected matters, including petitions seeking specific reliefs such as a fixed percentage of reservation for advocates with disabilities in State Bar Council elections. During these hearings, the Supreme Court expressed concern that despite the earlier direction, there had been no visible progress towards inclusion and that lawyers with disabilities continued to remain absent from elected Bar bodies.
The Bench observed that mere acknowledgment of disability rights, without structural measures to ensure representation, risks reducing equality to a hollow promise. It noted that professional bodies exercising statutory power under the Advocates Act, 1961, are bound by constitutional norms and cannot claim insulation from Part III of the Constitution. The Court remarked that advocates with disabilities form a distinct and identifiable class, and their consistent exclusion from Bar governance raises serious questions under Articles 14, 15, and 21.
During the December hearing, the Court urged the Bar Council of India to explore practical and workable mechanisms rather than confining the issue to abstract policy debate. The Bench suggested that the BCI could consider measures such as the creation of additional seats, reservation of specific seats, adoption of a co-option mechanism, or evolving a hybrid model that balances electoral integrity with inclusive representation. The Court indicated that such steps would not necessarily require disruption of the existing framework but would demonstrate institutional commitment to substantive equality.
The Bar Council of India, through its counsel, submitted that reservation in elected professional bodies involves complex policy and statutory considerations and that any binding framework may require legislative intervention under the Advocates Act. It was argued that unilateral judicial directions could have far-reaching consequences for the structure of Bar Council elections across the country. At the same time, the Court recorded the BCI’s assurance that the issue would be deliberated internally and that possible proposals would be examined in consultation with stakeholders.
The Supreme Court also took note of the temporal impact of inaction. It observed that once elections are conducted and new terms commence, advocates with disabilities would effectively be excluded from representation for several years, thereby perpetuating structural exclusion. The Bench indicated that repeated deferment of the issue on the ground of elections cannot become a justification for the indefinite denial of representation.
While stopping short of issuing a mandamus even at the December stage, the Court made it clear that the matter remains alive and under judicial consideration. The Bench signalled that it expects the Bar Council of India to place concrete proposals before the Court, reflecting serious engagement with the constitutional and statutory dimensions of disability inclusion. The Court’s observations underscore that continued inaction may invite stronger judicial intervention in the future.
The proceedings mark a significant moment in the evolving discourse on equality within the legal profession, situating Bar Council governance firmly within the constitutional framework of substantive inclusion rather than formal neutrality.
