An elected member of the 13th Bar Council of Kerala, as well as the Bar Council of India, Advocate N. Manoj Kumar, has written to the Chief Justice of the Kerala High Court, Justice Soumen Sen, objecting to the co-option of Advocate Girija Gopal as a woman member of the Kerala Bar Council.

The Chief Justice, pursuant to the directions of the Supreme Court, had nominated two names to be co-opted as women members - Senior Advocate Sumathy Dandapani and Advocate Girija Gopal.

Manoj Kumar has taken a specific objection to Girija Gopal's nomination, contending that the choice did not reflect the overwhelming preference expressed by elected members during a consultation.

In his letter to the Chief Justice, Kumar said the consultation held on September 1 was intended to obtain the views of elected members on the co-option of two women members. He said 20 of the 23 elected members participated in the meeting, with 17 specifically proposing the names of Adv. A. Parvathi Menon and Sr. Adv. Sumathy Dandapani. According to the representation, another member also supported the nomination, taking the support for the two names to 18 of the 20 participating members.

The representation, however, states that the decision subsequently communicated was to co-opt Sr. Adv. Sumathy Dandapani and Adv. Girija K. Gopal. Kumar pointed out that only one of the 20 participating elected members had proposed Girija K. Gopal's name. He questioned why the preference expressed by a substantial majority was not accepted and said no reason had been communicated for preferring Girija K. Gopal over Adv. A. Parvathi Menon.

Kumar also raised the issue of representation and diversity within the Bar Council. He noted that Adv. Girija K. Gopal had been associated with M/s Dandapani Associates, while Sr. Adv. Sumathy Dandapani had also been selected for co-option. He argued that the circumstance was relevant while considering whether the two co-opted positions would provide a wider and more diverse representation of the Bar.

Manoj Kumar conteded that the objection raised against Adv. Parvathi Menon's candidature - that she was already serving on several committees constituted by the High Court - did not justify rejecting her candidature. The representation says the Chief Justice had observed during the consultation that her committee responsibilities demonstrated her competence. It further states that when concerns were raised about whether she would have sufficient time for the Bar Council, she had indicated her willingness to devote the necessary time and actively work for the Council if co-opted.

Manoj Kumar clarified that his endeavour was not to raise questions concerning any individual but was rather rooted in the principle of giving weightage to the collective voice. He argued that when 18 out of 20 participating elected members supported a particular choice, departing from that consensus would require compelling reasons, particularly if no reasons were communicated.

Kumar has therefore requested the Chief Justice to reconsider the decision communicated by the Registrar General through a letter dated September 7, 2026, and to give effect to the preference expressed by the elected members at the September 1 consultation.