Supreme Court Issues Notice On PIL Seeking Minimum 30% Reservation For Women Lawyers In Govt Legal Panels

The Supreme Court today issued notice to the Union and all States on a public interest litigation filed by the Ladli Foundation Trust seeking at least 30 per cent reservation for women lawyers in government legal panels.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M Pancholi passed the order, after hearing Senior Advocates Vikas Singh (for petitioner).

During the hearing, Singh referred to the recent survey conducted by the Supreme Court Bar Association on the difficulties faced by women advcoates. Singh also submitted that even if women advocates are included in panels, they are not necessarily allotted cases. Hence, there must be a mechanism to ensure that they are allotted cases as well.

Briefly put, the PIL seeks a direction to the respondents to implement minimum 30% reservation for women advocates in all High Court panels, Government law officer positions and Central and State Government/PSU empanelments, so as to ensure enforcement of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 15(3), 19(1)(g) and 21.

According to the petitioner, empirical data indicates severe underrepresentation of women in such panels and legal positions.

"While women increasingly enter law schools and the legal profession in significant numbers, their representation declines sharply in positions of professional authority. Statistical data indicates that out of approx. 1.54 million advocates enrolled across India, only about 284507 are women, constituting approximately 15.31% of the legal workforce", the plea states.

The petitioner also argues that the imbalance is reflected even in higher judiciary, considering only 11 women have been elevated to the Supreme Court since the elevation of Justice Fathima Beevi in 1989.

It is further highlighted that since independence, no woman lawyer has been appointed as the Attorney General for India or the Solicitor General of India. Infact, none of the ASGs assigned to High Courts are women.

During the hearing, Senior Advocate Dr Monika Gusain informed the bench that in Haryana, no lady lawyer has been appointed to the post of Senior Addl. Advocate General since the creation of the post. When CJI noted that there are several women lawyers appointed at the post of AAG, the senior counsel replied that though there are women at such posts and they are getting monthly stipends as well, sometimes they don't cases for an entire month.

"Why do you talk of Sr AAG when Advocate General has not been appointed? Sr AAG is just one step above AAG..." CJI said. In response, Gusain quipped, "it is also one step below the Advocate General".

Later, the CJI commented that he did not agree to creation of such nomenclature (Sr AAG). When the CJI asked to whether there have been any women Advocate Generals in the country, Vikas Singh and Gusain informed that there have been only 1 or 2 till now. The senior counsels also pointed out that requisite data in this regard is not available and the States would be in a better position to answer the query.

Insofar as Gusain sought impleadment of the Bar Council of India and SCBA, Vikas Singh submitted that SCBA can file a separate petition but BCI does not have a role. He highlighted that panels are given by the state governments (as such, BCI is not required to be impleaded).

Ultimately, while calling for the parties to submit some comprehensive material, the bench issued notice.

Appearance: Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, AoR Mudit Gupta and Advocate Varun Singh (for petitioner)

Case Title: LADLI FOUNDATION TRUST Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS., W.P.(C) No. 471/2026