Supreme Court Seeks Video Of Delhi High Court Bar Association Meeting On Women's Reservation Proposal

The Supreme Court on Wednesday sought the production of a video recording from the Delhi High Court Bar Association (DHCBA) General Body Meeting (GBM) held on October 7, 2024.

This meeting had seen the rejection of a proposal to reserve seats for women in the association's Executive Committee. The Court scheduled the matter for further hearing on November 18 at noon, where it will review the recording to evaluate the discussions that took place concerning the reservation issue. Senior Advocate and DHCBA President, Mohit Mathur, confirmed to the Court that he would present the recording on the next date of hearing.

A bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan stated that it wished to examine if the reservation proposal had been dismissed following adequate deliberations.

“List on 18.11.2024. To be taken up at 12.00 Noon. Mr. Mohit Mathur, learned Senior Counsel and the President of the Delhi High Court Bar Association fairly agrees to produce the video-recording of the General Body Meeting held on 07.10.2024 on the next date of hearing”, the Court recorded.

The Court was hearing a batch of petitions advocating for the reservation of posts for women within various bar associations in Delhi, including the DHCBA. Some petitions seek up to a 33 percent quota for women in bar bodies across the national capital.

In September, the Court had suggested that the DHCBA reserve the post of Vice President women. Subsequently, the Court directed the association to hold a General Body Meeting to consider reserving at least the position of Treasurer and possibly another office-bearer role for women members. However, at the October 7 GBM, the association rejected the reservation proposal.

During the hearing, Senior Advocate Meenakshi Arora for the petitioners argued that the DHCBA's affidavit in the case demonstrated non-compliance with the Supreme Court's direction.

“Please look at the reply that has come and the resolutions that were passed. It starts on a negative…The whole thing is they don't want to do it, they start on a negative. It's a brazen outright non-compliance”, Arora said.

DHCBA's counsel Senior Advocate Vijay Hansaria opposed Arora's submissions. Hansaria contended that the DHCBA had complied with the Court's order by convening the GBM. He said that the petitioners had obtained orders from the Delhi High Court to postpone the bar elections across Delhi due to the reservation issue even though the Supreme Court's order was just for the DHCBA to have a general body meeting.

“your lordships' order only says that the Delhi High Court Bar Association will conduct a GBM. Using that as an order, they go to the Delhi High Court and get an order to postpone the election when an order of when a coordinate bench of your this court on 30th September said there is no deferment of elections”, Hansaria said.

Arora objected to Hansaria's interruption, “This is my petition, don't hijack it. Anyway you hijacked the whole Executive Committee, don't hijack my right to even address the court!”

Elections for the Bar Council and other Delhi-based bar associations were initially set for October 19 but have been postponed until December 13 due to the ongoing litigation.

Justice Surya Kant remarked, “one additional post of member executive reserved in either category is to accommodate one more woman, right? And they have not done it. So the male members of the bar are so much afraid of 22% women members that they don't want to make you a member of the Executive Committee also!”

Background

The petitioners have argued that the underrepresentation of women in bar associations negatively impacts women's professional opportunities and access to justice, and that it can undermine the justice system's overall effectiveness.

The DHCBA has resisted the proposal, arguing that it is a private association where reservations are inappropriate. In its affidavit, the DHCBA stated that it operated on principles of merit and inclusion without reservations, and expressed concern that adopting quotas for any group could disrupt the association's work. The DHCBA also noted that candidates had been preparing for the 2024 election well in advance, and argued that instituting reservations now would unfairly disadvantage those already in the election process.

Following a prior Supreme Court order, the DHCBA held the October 7 meeting in which the association rejected the proposed reservations. The association's affidavit also questioned the petitioners' motives, alleging that their petitions were politically motivated and aimed at advancing specific candidates. The affidavit further claimed that the bar's electorate votes based on merit, not appeals to gender or other identities.

The Supreme Court has previously ordered the implementation of 33% reservations for women in the Supreme Court Bar Association elections and is currently hearing petitions that seek similar reservations across Delhi's bar associations, including the Bar Council of Delhi.

Click Here To Read/Download Order

Case Title:

1. Aditi Chaudhary v. Bar Council of Delhi and Ors., Diary No. 42332-2024
2. Shobha Gupta and Anr. v. Bar Council of Delhi and Ors., Diary No. 42644-2024
3. Fozia Rahman v. Bar Council of Delhi, SLP(C) 24485/2022