Article 220 Doesn't Bar Ex-HC Judges' Co-option As Bar Council Women Members: Supreme Court
The Court observed that by virtue of being Bar Council members, ex-Judges are not required to resume practice in Courts.
The Supreme Court has clarified that Article 220 of the Constitution, which restricts former High Court Chief Justices and Judges from practising before courts and authorities in India, does not bar their co-option as women members of the respective State Bar Councils.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana made the clarification while disposing of miscellaneous applications seeking modification of the Court's earlier directions concerning the co-option of women members to State Bar Councils.
Article 220 of the Constitution provides that a person who has held office as a permanent Judge of a High Court shall not plead or act in any court or before any authority within the territory of India, except the Supreme Court and other High Courts. The provision is intended to restrict the legal practice of former High Court Judges, subject to the exceptions expressly mentioned in it.
The Court, however, clarified that the restriction on practice does not prevent a former High Court Judge from being co-opted as a member of the State Bar Council. The Court observed that by virtue of becoming a member of the State Bar Council, such former Judges would not be required to resume practice before the respective High Courts.
The clarification follows the Supreme Court's order dated August 4, 2026, in which the Court permitted the co-option of two women candidates to State Bar Councils from specified categories.
The August 4 order was passed pursuant to the Court's earlier directions dated December 8, 2025, which directed that 30% of the total seats in State Bar Councils should be represented by women members of Bar Associations. Of these, 20% were to be filled through election and 10% through co-option.
During submissions concerning the pool of candidates eligible for co-option, there was broad consensus that the Chief Justices of the jurisdictional High Courts could be authorised to nominate the co-opted women members.
Accordingly, the August 4 order stipulated that the two women candidates to be co-opted would be selected from either of the following categories: (1) Former women Judges of the jurisdictional High Court; or (2) Senior women members of the Bar having fair standing and belonging to the concerned State, States or Union Territories.
The Supreme Court rejected the objections concerning former High Court Judges and clarified that Article 220 did not constitute an impediment to their co-option.
"we do not view the bar contained in Article 220 of the Constitution against practice by former Chief Justices and Judges of the High Courts as any kind of impediment to their co-option into the respective SBC. By virtue of becoming a member of the SBCs, they are not required to resume practice before the respective High Courts."
The Court further clarified that women advocates who had contested State Bar Council elections but were unsuccessful would also be eligible for nomination through co-option. It held that the expression “senior” was not confined to advocates designated as senior advocates, but referred to persons who had practised for a substantially long period and were found suitable by the elected members of the State Bar Council and shortlisted by the Chief Justice of the respective High Court.
Reiterating the objective behind the mechanism, the bench said the initiative to ensure adequate representation of women members of the Bar was being undertaken for the first time and constituted a welcome step towards equal representation of women in the legal profession.
The Court observed that the mechanism guaranteeing women a place in elected offices would encourage more women lawyers to contest Bar Council elections. It added that Parliament and the Executive Authorities could, in due course, provide an appropriate mechanism for women's representation in various Bar Councils.
Until then, the Court said, the mechanism would continue to remain in force.
Case Details: SWATI SINHA & ORS. v UNION OF INDIA & ORS in YOGAMAYA M.G. Vs UNION OF INDIA|MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. OF 2026 [DIARY NO(S).51143/2026]
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 943
Appearances: For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Mehmood Pracha, Adv. Mr. R. H. A. Sikander, AOR Mr. Jatin Bhatt, Adv. Mr. Sanawar, Adv. Ms. Nujhat Naseem, Adv. Mr. Kumail Abbas, Adv. Mr. Adeel Hasan, Adv. Ms. Radhika Gautam, AOR Mr. Sanjay Parikh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Amit Srivastav, Adv. Ms. Sanjana Srikumar, AOR Mr. Onkar Singh, Adv. Ms. Avni Singh, Adv. Ms. Ragini Sachdeva, Adv. Ms. Sanya, Adv. Mr. Raj Narayan Pal, Adv. Dr. Menaka Guruswamy, Sr. Adv. Ms. Shaswati Parhi, Adv. Ms. Bhumika Yadav, Adv. Mr. Anmol Gupta, Adv. Ms. Suruchi Mittal, Adv. Ms. Anushka Sharma, Adv. Ms. Ritika Chaudhary, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Gautam, AOR Mr. Vikramaditya Chouhan, Adv. Mr. Mohit Singhal, Adv. Ms. Shobha Gupta, Sr. Adv. Ms. Yogamaya M G, Adv. Mr. Deepak Prakash, AOR Ms. Mamtha Singh, Adv. Ms. Mamta Singh, Adv. Mr. Pratheek Sharma, Adv. Ms. Jyoti P. Deborah, Adv. Ms. Jyoti P Deborah, Adv. Ms. Akansha Bhatia, Adv. Mr. Saksham Mathur, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Parekh, Sr. Adv. Ms. S. Lakshmi Iyer, AOR Ms. Sakshi Jain, Adv.
For Respondent(s) :Ms. Radhika Gautam, AOR Mr. R. Venkataramani, Attorney General for India Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General Mr. Anuj Udupa, Adv. Mr. Aastha Singh, Adv. Mr. Gaurang Bhushan, Adv. Mr. P.V. Yogeshwaran, Adv. Mr. Chitvan Singhal, Adv. Ms. Ameyavikrama Thanvi, Adv. Mr. Kartikay Aggarwal, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Kumar Pandey, Adv. Mr. Raman Yadav, Adv. Mr. Aman Mehta, Adv. Mr. G.S. Makkar (aor), Adv. Dr. N. Visakamurthy, AOR Mr. Prateek Bhatia, AOR Ms. Tatini Basu, AOR Mr. Kumar Shashank, Adv. Mr. Byrapaneni Suyodhan, Adv. Mr. D Bharat Kumar, Adv. Mr. M Chandrakanth Reddy, Adv. Mr. Siddhartha Sinha, AOR Mr. Yusuf, AOR Dr. Ram Sankar, Adv. Ms. Sujatha Bagadhi, Adv. Mr. Naveenkumar M A, Adv. Ms. Archana Goswami, Adv. Mr. Vasantha Kumar K, Adv. Mr. Tamizhendhi, Adv. Mr. Aljo K. Joseph, AOR Mrs. Sumita Ray, AOR Ms. Disha Ray, Adv. Ms. Vanshika Singh, Adv. Mr. Piyush Wadhwa, Adv. Ms. Vriddhi Bhatt, Adv. Mr. Rajat Kapoor, Adv. Mr. Arvind S. Avhad, AOR Mr. Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, AOR Mr. Karun Sharma, Adv. Ms. Anupama Ngangom, Adv. Ms. Rajkumari Divyasana, Adv. Mr. Vikas Upadhyay, AOR Mr. Jasbir Singh Malik, Adv. Ms. Prachi Sohi, Adv. Ms. Sri Pragyna A., Adv. Mr. Varun Punia, AOR Mr. Vivek Narayan Sharma, AOR Mrs. Mahima Bhrdwaj Kalucha, Adv. Mr. Akash Singh, Adv. Mr. Ajay Kumar Narula, Adv. Ms. Palak Kaushik, Adv. Ms. Annika Khurana, Adv. Mr. Vivek Sharma, Adv. Mr. Dinesh Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Abhishek Vikas, AOR Ms. Filza Moonis, AOR Applicant-in-person Mr. Shishir Pinaki, Adv. Mr. Dhanaeswar Gudapalli, Adv. Mr. D. Mahesh Babu, AOR Ms. Filza Moonis, AOR Mr. Sriram P., AOR Mr. Sriram Parakkat, Adv. Mr. Anandhu S. Nair, Adv. Mr. Abhay Jadaun, Adv. Mr. Ramavath Balaji Naik, Adv. Ms. Shreya Gupta, Adv. Ms. S. Lakshmi Iyer, AOR Mr. Sunny Kadiyan, AOR Ms. Aagam Kaur, AOR Mr. Biju P Raman, AOR Ms. Rajshri Ashutosh Dubey, AOR Mrs. Rajshri Dubey, Adv. Mr. Ashutosh Dubey, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Chauhan, Adv. Mr. Anjan Datta, Adv. Mr. Amit P Shahi, Adv. Mr. Anirban Tripathy, Adv. Mr. Rahul Sethi, Adv. Mrs. Rekha Chaudhary, Adv. Mr. Govind Kashyap, Adv. Mr. Rishabh Bhardwaj, Adv. Mr. Lokesh Raghav, Adv. Mr. Om Prakash Yadav, Adv. Ms. Chand Trikha, Adv. Mr. Hb Dubey, Adv. Mrs. Sona Khan, Adv. Mr. Durgesh Ramchandra Gupta, AOR Mr. Niranjan Sahu, AOR Ms. Abiha Zaidi, AOR Ms. Gaytri Virmani, Adv. Mr. Vairawan A.s, AOR
Mr. Pravartak Suhas Pathak, AOR Intervenor-in-person Ms. Nina Gupta, Adv. Ms. Radhika Gupta, AOR Ms. Bhumani Tyagi, Adv.