DHCBA Women Reservation | Supreme Court Expresses Displeasure At Lawyer's Comment On Women Representation In Bench

While hearing pleas seeking reservation for women lawyers in the Delhi High Court Bar Association, the Supreme Court today expressed serious displeasure at a counsel's comment regarding women representation in the Court's Bench(es).

Justice Surya Kant, part of a bench comprising Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, called out the remark, saying that if it was meant for the media and to play to the gallery, the counsel was free to repeat it 10 more times. However, the bench would not entertain anything further and next hear arguments in the case.

Notably, the counsel submitted that there are only 22% women lawyers in the Delhi High Court Bar, but they are seeking more than 33% reservation. "Bar is electing 20% and close to that number on their own. This is going to open a Pandora's box, because people, especially lawyers are questioning the Bench itself - how many women judges would we have?", she remarked.

To this, Justice Kant responded by saying, "if you think that this statement to media and playing to gallery is going to make any difference, please repeat it 10 times. You are here to resolve the issue or here to just put fuel to fire!? Don't [...] our Court! Enough is enough. If this is the way the Bar will conduct itself, [shame] on you!"

To recap, the Court had earlier asked the DHCBA to consider reserving post of Vice-President for women lawyers in the upcoming elections. The bench had found it disappointing that since the year 1962, there had not been even a single woman President of the Bar.

Subsequently, the Court ordered that there should be women's reservation for posts in DHCBA and directed that a meeting of the General Body of DHCBA be held to consider the desirability of reserving the post of Treasurer for women members. In addition to reserving the post of Treasurer, GB was at liberty to consider the desirability of reserving 1 more post of office bearers of the Bar Association for women members.

Pursuant to this order, the DHCBA filed a response urging that the petitions be dismissed and the matter allowed to continue before the Delhi High Court (where it is pending). It was stated that a GBM was held on October 7, wherein members of the General Body resolved that they were not in favor of reservation in the seats of the Executive Committee of the DHCBA.

Few days ago, the top Court sought production of the video recording of the DHCBA GBM held on October 7.

Today, the Court perused the videos brought on record (3 out of 8 stated to be relevant). One of the counsels for the petitioners apprised the Court that during the meeting, the post of Joint Treasurer was proposed from the opposite side, but the same is only symbolic.

Senior Advocate Mohit Mathur, for DHCBA, urged that on October 7, when the GBM was held, several members insisted that an additional agenda be placed first before the General Body, i.e., whether the members of the DHCBA were in favor of reserving any seat in the Executive Committee for any class of members in any form. Accordingly, the same was taken up and eventually, the members decided against any form of reservation.

Adjourning the matter to November 29, the bench expressed that it would hear arguments on the larger issue and thereafter pass orders. Notably, the Delhi High Court has postponed to December 13 the elections for the Executive Committee of DHCBA and all district court bar associations in the national capital.

Background

The Court is dealing with 3 petitions seeking reservation for women lawyers in Delhi's lawyer bodies viz. Bar Council of Delhi (BCD), Delhi High Court Bar Association (DHCBA) and all District Bar Associations.

One of the petitions was filed by Advocate Shobha Gupta, who contends that under­ representation of women in effective posts in BCD and other Bar associations can negatively affect their rights and access to justice as well as detract from the justice system's overall effectiveness.

Specifically seeking directions for 33% reservation in the upcoming Bar Council elections of all Advocate Bars in Delhi, Gupta initially approached the Delhi High Court. But on September 11, the High Court refused to grant interim relief and listed the matter for November 27.

As the Delhi Bar elections were scheduled to be held on October 19, and no interim relief was granted, the petitioners prayers were seemingly rendered infructuous. In this backdrop, the present pleas were filed before the Supreme Court, asserting that process of the elections has commenced with declaration/finalizing voter list.

Notice was issued on the petitions on September 20.

Earlier this year, the Supreme Court had directed the implementation of 33% women reservation in SCBA elections.

NOTE: Initially, it was wrongly reported that the lawyer who made the comment represented the DHCBA. The report was later amended. The error is regretted.

Case Title: FOZIA RAHMAN Versus BAR COUNCIL OF DELHI, SLP(C) 24485/2024 (and connected cases)