Bar Council Elections : Supreme Court Requests Justice Dhulia Committee To Decide Manner Of Co-opting Women Members

In the matter relating to 30% women's reservation in the State Bar Council elections, the Supreme Court today requested the High-Powered Supervisory Committee headed by Justice (retired) Sudhanshu Dhulia to decide the manner in which 10% co-option of women candidates is to be carried out.

In December last year, the Court had directed that the Bar Councils must ensure 30% women's reservation. To address the contingency of inadequate women candidates competing, the Court had clarified that 10% of those positions can be filled up by way of co-option.

Today, the bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing a writ petition which raised concerns about the misuse of the co-option method.

The Court noted that different options have been proposed by the petitioner/intervenor :

(i) Co-option shall be among contesting women candidates who have secured the highest votes though they could not be elected.

(ii) Decision of co-option should be left to the state bar councils or be made by the BCI

(iii) The exercise of co-option shall be allowed to be done by the state election committee

The Court noted that each option has its own merits and demerits, and said that the Justice Dhulia committee was best placed to take an appropriate decision. The Committee was therefore asked to take a decision after consulting all the stakeholders.

The bench noted that the Bar Council of India has also issued rules providing that BCI will do the co-option of women candidates. The Court also noted that the lack of clarity in the order of the Court regarding the mode and manner of 10 percent co-option gave rise to the present proceedings.

The Court also noted that in several States, including Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, more than five women candidates contested the elections and contested on open seats, securing more votes than their male counterparts and thereby winning the polls as open category candidates.

The petitioner's counsel, Senior Advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu, submitted that the Court's direction is being misinterpreted to weaken women's reservation. He said that in states like Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, there were several women candidates; in such situations where there are large number of women candidates, the entire 30% should be elected, instead of resorting to co-option, he submitted.

"Otherwise, what is being indicated in the rule is that, all the Bar Associations across the state will recommend names and from that they will choose twice the number of candidates...it will be a mayhem," Naidu submitted.

"The unintended consequence is that those who took the trouble of contesting are being marginalised, and those who did not....," Naidu submitted, urging that only in the absence of candidates, co-option should be resorted to.

Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for an intervenor (the male candidate who got the most votes in Telangana), supporting the petitioner, submitted that the BCI has framed rules stating that they will do the co-option in consultation with bar associations. He said that it will open a "Pandora's box." He referred to Section 3(2)(b) of the Advocates Act which mandates that Bar Council members must be elected in accordance with the system of proportional representation by means of the single transferable vote.

The Chief Justice said that the co-option was allowed only as a measure for the present year, and said that the Court would modify the order. However, the CJI agreed to ask the Justice Dhulia committee to examine how it is to be implemented.

Justice Bagchi said that co-option was allowed to address the situation of inadequate successful women candidates, and not just insufficient contesting candidates.

Sankaranarayanan then suggested that the women candidates who contested be co-opted. He said that the next issue was who would do the co-option, and raised concerns about BCI doing it for the State Bar Councils. 

The bench said that it is better that the Justice Dhulia committee take a call on this aspect. In the order, the Court also recorded its appreciation for the High Powered Election Supervisory Committee for performing the supervision of the Bar Council Elections.

Case : Siva Kumari v. Union of India | W.P.(C) No. 372/2026