Supreme Court: Women Lawyers Need Not Be Designated Senior Advocates for Bar Council Co-option

The Supreme Court has clarified that senior women members of the Bar need not hold the Senior Advocate designation to be considered for co-option to State Bar Councils under its women-representation mechanism, Bar & Bench reported. ^[1]

The clarification came from a Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, while hearing applications seeking modification of the Court's August 4 order on co-option of women members. By an order of December 8, 2025, the Court had directed that women hold 30 per cent representation in State Bar Councils, with 20 per cent of the seats filled through election and 10 per cent through co-option; the August 4 order set out the mechanism for the co-option component. ^{[1] [1] [4]}

Under that mechanism, two women were to be co-opted from among former women judges of the jurisdictional High Court or senior women members of the Bar having fair standing and belonging to the concerned State or Union Territory, with nominations made by the Chief Justice of the jurisdictional High Court after consulting elected members of the concerned State Bar Council. In its September 9 order, the Court said the word "senior" did not refer only to lawyers designated as Senior Advocates. ^[1]

The Court added that "senior" means someone in practice for a substantially long period and found suitable by elected State Bar Council members and shortlisted by the respective High Court Chief Justice. It also clarified that Article 220, which restricts practice by former Chief Justices and judges of High Courts, does not prevent them from being co-opted, reasoning that Bar Council membership does not require a former judge to resume practice before the respective High Court. ^[1]

The Bar Council of India had sought recall or modification of the August 4 order, supporting 30 per cent representation while proposing that co-opted women be selected by newly elected State Bar Council members through a resolution or vote, or that seats go to the next eligible unsuccessful women candidates in the final election results. The Court declined to replace its mechanism and disposed of the applications with clarifications, reiterating that unsuccessful women candidates could still be considered for co-option and that only one woman would be co-opted to the 15-member Tripura State Bar Council. ^{[1] [1]}

The Court described the initiative as the first of its kind and a welcome step toward equal representation, expressing hope that Parliament and the executive would in due course provide an appropriate mechanism for women's representation in Bar Councils, with the present mechanism continuing in force until then. Senior Advocates Sanjay Parikh, Menaka Guruswamy and Shobha Gupta were among counsel for the petitioners; Advocate Radhika Gautam represented the Bar Council of India, while Attorney General R Venkataramani and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared for the respondents. ^{[1] [1]}