Delhi High Court Bar Association Decides Against Reservation For Women Lawyers, Informs Supreme Court About GBM Decision

In pleas seeking reservation for women lawyers in Delhi High Court Bar Association (DHCBA), the DHCBA has filed a response stating that it is an "association" of lawyers and there can be no reservation in a private association.

"the ideology of the DHCBA and its members, is borne out of merit and inclusion. The members of the DHCBA believe that the selection of the candidates should be purely merit-based and that there should be no reservation for any class of members", says the Association in its affidavit.

It may be recalled that in September, the Supreme Court asked the DHCBA to consider reserving post of Vice-President for women lawyers in the upcoming elections. The bench further 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 the Delhi High Court Bar Association. It was directed that a meeting of the General Body of DHCBA be held as early as possible, not later than 10 days. The GB was 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 has 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 is stated that a General Body Meeting was held on October 7 wherein several senior members objected and insisted that an additional agenda be placed 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 the members of the General Body in unison rejected the agenda stating that they were not in favor of any reservation in the seats of the Executive Committee of the DHCBA, in any form.

DHCBA claims that the step of reserving a post for any particular class or category of members shall have consequences which will render the working of the Association difficult.

"This would lead to other classes and categories coming forward and seeking similar relief. The Association, was formed in 1962, has worked till date in absolute harmony and has over a period of time, constantly and organically evolved in aligning itself with the ever-changing aspirations of its members, without appeasement of any particular class of members."

In the context of the upcoming elections, the affidavit adds,

"For the election scheduled to be in the year 2024, certain candidates had announced their candidature in 2022, i.e., immediately after the conclusion of the then DHCBA Elections. Thus, the prayers sought for by the Petitioners that the reservation be permitted for the present elections is not feasible and in fact, unfair to the candidates who have already been working hard towards the elections and towards making a contribution to the work of the DHCBA."

DHCBA also questions the locus and motives of the petitioners. It is mentioned that enrolment of petitioner-Aditi Chaudhary is that of 2022. The eligibility for the post of the Treasurer in DHCBA is a minimum of 10 years of enrolment with the Bar Council of Delhi. Thus, "the Petitioner and her Petition is a front for a candidate for the post of Treasurer".

With regard to petitioner-Shobha Gupta, it is mentioned that she failed to disclose in her petition, "guised in the form of a Public Interest Litigation", that she contested for the post of Member, Bar Council of Delhi in the last elections. "She is also likely to contest again in the upcoming elections of the Bar Council of Delhi. Thus, her petition, too, is motivated and self-serving and liable to be dismissed", the affidavit states.

It is further asserted that voters in Bar elections are intelligent and discerning, and any appeal on the basis of gender is likely to be rejected.

"The voters participating in these elections are intelligent and discerning. There have been numerous examples where candidates not having a clean record have been rejected by the electorate or have been voted out of power...candidates simply appealing to a particular cast, lobby or gender have often failed in their endeavour to be elected."

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.

Recently, the Delhi High Court postponed to December 13 the elections for the Executive Committee of DHCBA and all district court bar associations in the national capital.

Case Title:

(1) ADITI CHAUDHARY Versus BAR COUNCIL OF DELHI AND ORS., Diary No. 42332-2024

(2) SHOBHA GUPTA AND ANR. Versus BAR COUNCIL OF DELHI AND ORS., Diary No. 42644-2024

(3) FOZIA RAHMAN Versus BAR COUNCIL OF DELHI, SLP(C) 24485/2024