Supreme Court Supports Reservation For Advocates With Disabilities In State Bar Councils; Asks BCI To Submit Proposal

The Supreme Court on Tuesday underscored that inclusivity and a humane approach must guide institutional decision-making, as it issued notice in a plea seeking reservation for persons with disabilities in State Bar Council elections and asked the Bar Council of India to hold consultations and place a proposal before the Court.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing a plea seeking 4 per cent reservation for advocates with disabilities in the elections to the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu. During the hearing, the CJI repeatedly stressed that representation of persons with disabilities would strengthen the legal profession and enhance the humane character of its institutions.

At the outset, BCI Chairperson and Senior Advocate Manan Kumar Mishra opposed the plea, arguing that there was no reservation for persons with disabilities in Parliament or State Assemblies and cautioning against opening the door to multiple categories of claims. He submitted that the population of persons with disabilities among advocates was minimal, and reserving even a single seat in councils with limited strength would be impractical.

"Once we start doing this, there will be no end to it. And their population is not even 0.1%. Now out 25 or 15 or 20 seats, if we start allotting 1 seat to them, there will be no end to it," Mishra submitted.

Intervening, the CJI observed that even one representative would meaningfully advance inclusivity. "If we have even one representative, that will strengthen the institution, that will enhance the humane face of the institution and will also fortify your commitment to inclusivity," CJI said.

Senior Advocate S Prabhakaran, Vice Chairperson of BCI, representing the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu also opposed the plea, saying, "Then in Tamil Nadu there are many transgenders practising, and they will also claim tomorrow."

The CJI responded that Tamil Nadu had historically produced some of the finest leaders of the Bar and should be at the forefront of inclusive practices.

Senior Advocate Indira Jaising, appearing for the petitioners, countered Mishra's submission and said that the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act provided reservations for PwDs. She also urged the Court not to adjourn the matter beyond the election schedules already announced in several States, warning that doing so would render the plea infructuous for another five years.

Considering the seriousness of the matter, the CJI remarked that the BCI should hold consultations regarding this before the declaration of elections and apprise the bench on the same. He said :

"Today, an issue has been flagged, an issue of paramount importance. That's why we said- inclusivity, humane approach (inaudible) that their representation, their presence shall be felt everywhere."

"Think of a small meeting, online or so, you consider this aspect, and we would impress upon you, if you want to, for every state bar council, increase 1-2 seats, file an appropriate proposal before us. Then you can think of co-opting the member instead of forcing them to go through a proper election process," CJI said. CJI said that there are many specially-abled advocates in active practice, and their competence is no less than that of others. He cited the example of Senior Advocate SK Rungta of the Delhi High Court, who is visually impaired.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Union, also submitted that PwDs are being empanelled as government counsels. The CJI, appreciating the step, said, "Very good initiative, we have to strengthen and enhance the initiative, we have to build an architecture of an inclusive society."

Jaising also raised the issue of the nomination fees, Rs 1.25 lakhs, being too exorbitant. CJI then pointed out that the Supreme Court has already dismissed a petition challenging the nomination fees. Jaising replied that she was only seeking that the nomination fees be reduced for advocates with disabilities, as it posed a structural barrier.

Jaisingh further submitted that while transgender persons enjoy horizontal representation within existing categories, advocates with disabilities are often excluded altogether. Advocate Vivek Narayan Sharma supported the proposal for co-option as a practical solution.

Jaising added that transgender persons get horizontal representation in male and female categories, and that it's the PwDs instead who get knocked out. Advocate Vivek Narayan Sharma also supported the suggestion of co-option.

Bench will now hear the matter in the first week of January.

Recently, on the prodding of the Supreme Court, the BCI agreed to implement women's reservation in State Bar Councils.

Case Details : S. M. VETRIVEL vs. THE SECRETARY, BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA|SLP(C) No. 036061 - / 2025