Supreme Court Clarifies Co-Option Rules for Women in State Bar Councils, Disposes Modification Pleas
A three-judge bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant resolved disputes over eligibility, seniority, and High Court judge nominations for women’s co-option seats in State Bar Councils.
The Supreme Court on 9 September 2026 disposed of six miscellaneous applications seeking modification of its earlier order dated 4 August 2026, which had directed that two women candidates be co-opted into each State Bar Council (SBC) — either from among former women Judges of the jurisdictional High Court, or from senior women members of the Bar. The bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V. Mohana issued four specific clarifications addressing contested questions about who qualifies, what “senior” means, and whether Article 220 of the Constitution bars the nomination of former High Court Judges.
How the Dispute Reached the Court
The matter originated in Writ Petition (C) No. 581/2024. By its order of 8 December 2025, the Court directed that 30% of total seats in every State Bar Council be reserved for women members: 20% through election and 10% through co-option.
A question then arose about who would select the co-opted members. After submissions from Bar members and a suggestion from the Court itself, there was broad consensus that Chief Justices of the jurisdictional High Courts should be authorised to nominate the co-opted women. The August 2026 order formalised that arrangement, specifying the two eligible categories.
Several parties then filed miscellaneous applications seeking to change the mechanism. Some applicants wanted the elected members of the SBC to choose the co-opted seats through a democratic process. Others argued that the seats should go to unsuccessful women candidates who had secured the highest votes in the SBC elections. Additional concerns were raised about the meaning of “senior,” the eligibility of women advocates who had contested but lost SBC elections, and whether a former High Court Judge could constitutionally become a co-opted SBC member.
What the Court Held
The Court declined to alter the co-option mechanism and rejected both alternative proposals put forward by the applicants. It did not hand over the selection to elected SBC members, nor did it direct that the seats be filled by the highest-polling unsuccessful candidates. The Chief Justice-led nomination process from August 2026 stands unchanged.
Instead, the bench issued four clarifications to remove ambiguity in its existing directions.
The Four Clarifications
Unsuccessful candidates remain eligible. The Court confirmed that women advocates who contested SBC elections but lost are also eligible for nomination under co-option. This had already been clarified in paragraph 4 of the August 2026 order, and the bench reiterated it in response to the applications.
“Senior” does not mean designated Senior Advocate. The Court held that the word “senior” in the August 2026 order is not confined to advocates who hold a formal designation under the Advocates Act. Rather, it means someone who has been in practice for a substantially long period and is found suitable both by the elected members of the SBC and by the Chief Justice of the respective High Court. This reading prevents the term from being interpreted in a technical or restrictive sense that would narrow the pool of eligible nominees.
Article 220 is not a bar to co-option. Article 220 of the Constitution prohibits former Chief Justices and Judges of High Courts from practising in certain courts after their retirement. The Court held that this provision does not prevent a former High Court Judge from being co-opted into an SBC. Membership of an SBC does not require the person to resume practice before the High Court, and so the constitutional prohibition is not triggered.
Tripura SBC gets one co-opted seat, not two. Because the Tripura SBC has only fifteen members in total, the Court clarified that only one woman member would be co-opted there, rather than the two directed for larger councils.
The Court’s Observations on Women’s Representation
While disposing of the applications, the bench observed that the initiative of ensuring adequate representation to women members of the Bar had occurred for the first time. It expressed the view that the court-created mechanism, by guaranteeing women lawyers a place in elected offices, would encourage more women to contest Bar Council elections. The bench also noted its expectation that Parliament and the Executive would, in due course, provide their own mechanism for women’s representation in Bar Councils. Until such a mechanism exists, the court-directed arrangement will remain in force.
Outcome
All six miscellaneous applications were disposed of on 9 September 2026. The modifications sought by the applicants were not granted. The co-option mechanism established by the order of 4 August 2026 continues, with the four clarifications issued by the Court now forming part of the operative directions. All pending interlocutory applications were also disposed of.