The Bar Council of India (BCI) has kept in abeyance its earlier communication directing State Bar Councils to convene meetings for the process of co-option of women members, observing that the identification of members to be co-opted might be premature since election-related issues are pending consideration before the High-Powered Election Supervisory Committee.

In its August 11 communication, the BCI had directed all State Bar Councils to convene a meeting on August 16 to prepare a panel of four women members and submit the same to the High Court Chief Justice for selecting two members.

Now, in a communication dated August 12, addressed to the Secretaries of all State Bar Councils, BCI said its communication dated August 11 would remain in abeyance “for the present” until further communication from the BCI.

The BCI said that it has taken the present decision after considering the Supreme Court's August 4 order in Yogamaya M.G. v. Union of India & Ors, as per which the jurisdictional High Court Chief Justices were requested to select two women members to be co-opted to the Bar Councils.

The BCI also noted that the Supreme Court had directed the High-Powered Election Supervisory Committee, headed by former Supreme Court judge Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, to consider issues concerning the methodology for calculation of transferable votes among contesting candidates, particularly women candidates.

According to the BCI, grievances and disputes concerning the election process,including matters affecting the exclusion, elimination, ranking or electoral status of candidates, are pending or may come before the High-Powered Election Supervisory Committee, Election Committees, Tribunals or other competent authorities acting under the Supreme Court's directions.

The BCI said any determination in those proceedings could affect the electoral position or status of a woman candidate and consequently become relevant to the factual matrix concerning representation and co-option of women members in the concerned State Bar Council.

The BCI's latest communication stated :

"In these circumstances, the Bar Council of India considers that proceeding at this stage with the separate facilitative exercise contemplated by its communication dated 11.08.2026, including identification and recommendation of names pursuant thereto, may be premature and may give rise to avoidable overlapping processes or inconsistency with a subsequent determination of a competent forum.

The Bar Council of India, therefore, considers it appropriate, as a matter of institutional prudence and by way of abundant caution, to preserve the present position and to await appropriate consideration and determination of such issues by the competent forums.

Accordingly, Bar Council of India communication No. BCI:D:5204/2026 dated 11.08.2026, and the meeting proposed to be convened on 16.08.2026 pursuant thereto, shall remain in abeyance for the present and until further communication from the Bar Council of India."

The councils have also been instructed that if any preliminary steps have already been taken pursuant to the August 11 communication, no further consequential action should be taken for the present. Any material or recommendation already prepared should not be treated as final or acted upon merely on the strength of the earlier communication while it remains in abeyance.

It may be noted that after the BCI's August 11 communication, Yogamaya MG, the petitioner in the plea seeking women's reservation, had filed an application, contending that the BCI's move was against the Supreme Court's August 4 order. The applicant contended that the BCI, while purporting to facilitate implementation of the Supreme Court's order, has “overreached and interfered” with the Court's directions by creating a procedure for preparing a four-member panel. According to the application, the Supreme Court had left the decision on nomination of the two co-opted women members to the Chief Justices of the respective High Courts, subject to consultation with the elected State Bar Council members. The applicant contended that the BCI's direction to prepare and forward a panel of four names introduces a mechanism that was not contemplated by the Supreme Court's order. The applicant had therefore asked the Supreme Court to declare the BCI's August 11 circular illegal and an interference with the Court's August 4 order in the pending writ petition. The application also seeks any other directions the Court considers appropriate.

Click here to read the BCI's communication