Women lawyers need not be designated Senior Advocates for co-option to State Bar Councils: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has clarified that senior women members of the Bar need not be designated Senior Advocates to be considered for co-option to State Bar Councils under the women representation mechanism laid down by the Court [Swati Sinha & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.]..A Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana made the clarification while dealing with applications seeking the modification of its August 4 order concerning the co-option of women members to State Bar Councils..By an order passed on December 8, 2025, the top court had directed that women should have 30 per cent representation in State Bar Councils, with 20 per cent of such seats to be filled through election and 10 per cent through co-option.On August 4, the Court laid down the mechanism for the 10 per cent co-option component. It directed that two women be co-opted from among former women judges of the jurisdictional High Court or senior women members of the Bar having fair standing and belonging to the concerned State or Union Territory.The Chief Justice of the jurisdictional High Court was tasked with making the nominations after consulting all the elected members of the concerned State Bar Council.In its September 9 order, the Court clarified that the word "senior" in its earlier order did not refer only to lawyers designated as Senior Advocates."Rather, it means someone who has been in practice for a substantially long period of time and is found suitable by the elected members of the SBC as well as shortlisted by the Chief Justice of the respective High Court," the Court said.The Court also clarified that Article 220 of the Constitution, which restricts practice by former Chief Justices and judges of High Courts, does not prevent them from being co-opted to State Bar Councils. It reasoned that becoming a Bar Council member does not require a former judge to resume practice before the respective High Court..The Bar Council of India (BCI) had sought recall or modification of the August 4 order. While supporting 30 per cent representation for women, it sought a modification of the mechanism prescribed for filling the co-option seats.The BCI proposed that the co-opted women could instead be selected by the newly elected State Bar Council members through a transparent resolution or vote.Alternatively, it suggested that the seats be filled by the next eligible unsuccessful women candidates in the order reflected in the final election results..The Supreme Court did not replace its co-option mechanism and disposed of the applications with clarifications.It reiterated that women who unsuccessfully contested SBC elections could still be considered for co-option. It also clarified that only one woman would be co-opted to the Tripura State Bar Council, which has 15 members.The Court added that the initiative to ensure adequate representation for women members of the Bar was being undertaken for the first time and was a welcome step towards equal representation of women in the legal profession."While it is difficult to ensure nomination for all, we believe this court-created mechanism, guaranteeing them a place in elected offices, will encourage women lawyers to come forward and contest Bar Council elections in even greater numbers," it said.The Court expressed hope that Parliament and the executive authorities would, in due course, provide an appropriate mechanism for women's representation in various Bar Councils. Until then, it said, the present mechanism would continue to remain in force..Senior Advocates Sanjay Parikh, Menaka Guruswamy and Shobha Gupta were among the counsel who appeared for the petitioners.Advocate Radhika Gautam represented the Bar Council of India.Attorney General R Venkataramani and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, among others, appeared for the respondents..[Read Order]