Supreme Court Displeased That Woman Advocate Engaged Male Lawyer To Argue Plea For Female Reservation In Bar Association

While hearing a plea seeking 33% reservation for women lawyers in Gujarat's bar bodies, the Supreme Court today called out the petitioner, a lady advocate, for engaging a male advocate to argue the case.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan expressed disappointment over the petitioner's engaging of a male advocate, when her plea was for reservation for women lawyers.

The exchange took place when at the outset of the hearing, counsel for the petitioner (a male advocate) apprised the court that the petitioner is a lady advocate practicing before courts in Gujarat.

Before hearing him any further, Justice Kant expressed that the bench had two preliminary objections. First - as to why the petitioner did not initially approach the Gujarat High Court, and second, as to why the petitioner herself was not arguing the case.

"When the lady advocate is asking for 33% reservation, why can't she argue the case? We would like to know whether she deserves that reservation or not? She should be ready to argue the case. Why should she ride on the shoulders of a male advocate?", commented Justice Kant.

On the first objection, the petitioner's counsel explained that the plea was preferred before the Supreme Court as it is already seized of similar matter with respect to Delhi Bar bodies. On the second objection, he conceded to what was falling from the court and conveyed that the petitioner would appear and argue on the next date. 

In response to the counsel's submissions, Justice Kant remarked that the Court has not passed any final order in the Delhi Bar matter and the same had arisen out of a judgment of the Delhi High Court. As such, the petitioner should first approach the Gujarat High Court.

At this point, the petitioner's counsel urged that the Delhi High Court judgment would come in the way of the petitioner and prejudice the Gujarat High Court. Unconvinced, Justice Kant said that the Delhi High Court judgment may have persuasive value, but the Gujarat High Court can take its own view.

Ultimately, the matter was posted to 19th December (when the Delhi Bar matter is listed), to enable the petitioner to assist the court on the larger issues in person. 

Case Title: MEENA A. JAGTAP v. BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA, W.P.(C) No. 819/2024