The Supreme Court of India has made a significant clarification regarding the co-option of women into State Bar Councils, asserting that senior women members of the Bar are not required to hold the title of Senior Advocate to be eligible under the women representation mechanism. This decision is part of the case Swati Sinha & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
The Bench, composed of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, addressed petitions seeking to amend their earlier order from August 4, 2025, concerning the inclusion of women in State Bar Councils. The December 8, 2025, order mandated a 30% representation of women in these councils, with 20% of the positions filled through elections and 10% by co-option.
On August 4, the Supreme Court outlined the co-option process, directing that two women be selected from either former women judges of the pertinent High Court or senior women practitioners with commendable standing from the relevant State or Union Territory. The Chief Justice of the jurisdictional High Court was tasked with nominating individuals after consulting with elected State Bar Council members.
In a subsequent order dated September 9, the Court clarified that the term “senior” does not exclusively refer to lawyers officially designated as Senior Advocates. Instead, it encompasses those who have practiced law for a substantial period and are deemed suitable by both the elected members of the State Bar Council and the Chief Justice of the respective High Court.
The Court also addressed concerns regarding Article 220 of the Constitution, stating that it does not prevent former Chief Justices and High Court judges from being co-opted into State Bar Councils, as this does not necessitate their return to legal practice.
The Bar Council of India (BCI) had filed for either a recall or modification of the August 4 order. While endorsing the 30% representation for women, the BCI proposed that the newly elected State Bar Council members should select the co-opted women through a transparent resolution or vote. Alternatively, it suggested that these seats be occupied by the next eligible unsuccessful women candidates based on the election results.
The Supreme Court decided to retain its original co-option mechanism, dismissing the BCI’s applications but providing clarifications. It emphasized that women who were unsuccessful in the State Bar Council elections could still be considered for co-option.
Additionally, the Court specified that only one woman would be co-opted to the Tripura State Bar Council, which comprises 15 members. It lauded the initiative as a significant step toward ensuring equal representation of women within the legal domain.
More Read
The Supreme Court expressed optimism that Parliament and executive authorities would eventually establish a suitable mechanism for women’s representation in various Bar Councils, but until then, the current system would remain operational.
Senior Advocates Sanjay Parikh, Menaka Guruswamy, and Shobha Gupta represented the petitioners, while Advocate Radhika Gautam appeared for the Bar Council of India. Attorney General R Venkataramani and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, among others, appeared for the respondents.
