In a landmark decision aimed at promoting gender equality in the legal profession, the Supreme Court has directed that the post of Treasurer in the upcoming Bengaluru Advocates’ Association elections be exclusively reserved for women candidates. The elections, scheduled for February 2, 2025, will also see the high-Powered Committee and the Chief Returning Officer consider reserving at least 30% of other Governing Council posts for women lawyers to ensure their adequate portrayal.
The bench, comprising Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh, invoked its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to issue the order. The Court noted that the existing regulations do not explicitly prohibit the reservation of posts for women lawyers. This decision mirrors similar directives previously passed in the case of Delhi High Court and District Bar Associations.
The Court’s order was explicitly stated as follows:
“We deem it appropriate to invoke our powers under Article 142 of Constitution and direct as follows – (i) the post of Treasurer shall be exclusively earmarked for women candidates. (ii) for this purpose, the High Powered Committee and the Chief Returning officer shall extend the date for inviting nominations and if so required, the date of election can also be deferred for a few days. However, such a decision shall be to the entire discretion of the HPC and the CRO. (iii) The High Powered Committee and the Chief returning Officer may also consider desirability of ensuring adequate representation to the women advocates in the Governing Council of Advocates’ Association Bengaluru to ensure that at least 30% elected members of GC are women candidates of 10 yrs or above practice.”
Following the order, Senior Advocate Lakshmy Iyengar, representing the petitioners, sought clarification on whether the 10-year experience criteria would apply. The bench clarified that the directions issued in the Delhi bar associations’ case would apply mutatis mutandis to the Advocates’ Association Bengaluru (AAB). This means the experience requirement would not be a barrier for women candidates.
The petitions were filed after the Karnataka High Court, while supportive of reservations for women lawyers, held that only the Supreme Court could issue such an order. the term of the AAB’s Governing Council ended on December 19,2024,leaving the association unrepresented during the proceedings.
This decision builds on the Court’s earlier ruling in 2024, were it reserved three posts for women lawyers in the Delhi High Court Bar Association elections. Additionally, it mandated that in District bar Associations, the post of Treasurer plus 30% of other Executive Committee posts be reserved for women lawyers. This directive has since been extended to Delhi’s NGT Bar Association, Tax Bar Association, and Sales Tax Bar Association.
| Key Highlights of the Supreme Court Order |
|———————————————–|
| Post Reserved | Treasurer exclusively for women candidates |
| Additional Reservation | 30% of Governing Council posts for women lawyers |
| Legal Basis | Article 142 of the constitution |
| Election Date | February 2, 2025 |
| Experience Criteria | 10 years or above (not mandatory) |
This ruling marks a important step toward ensuring gender parity in the legal profession, setting a precedent for other bar associations across the country. For more details on the Supreme Court’s role in shaping such landmark decisions, visit the Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center.
Breaking Barriers: Supreme Court’s Directive on Gender Parity in Bengaluru Advocates’ Association
Table of Contents
In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court has mandated the reservation of the Treasurer post for women candidates in the upcoming Bengaluru Advocates’ Association elections, scheduled for February 2, 2025. This ruling, invoking Article 142 of the Constitution, also encourages reserving 30% of the Governing Council posts for women lawyers. To delve deeper into the implications of this historic move, we spoke with Dr. anjali Rao, a legal scholar and expert in constitutional law specializing in gender equality in the judiciary.
The Genesis of the Supreme Court’s Decision
editor: Dr. rao, can you explain the meaning of the Supreme Court invoking Article 142 in this case?
Dr. Anjali Rao: Absolutely. Article 142 empowers the Supreme Court to pass any order necessary to ensure complete justice. In this instance, the Court recognized the systemic underrepresentation of women in the legal profession and used its constitutional authority to address this imbalance. By directing the reservation of the Treasurer post and recommending 30% reservation in the Governing Council, the Court has taken a proactive step toward fostering gender parity in the legal fraternity.
implications for the Legal Profession
Editor: How do you think this decision will impact women lawyers, especially in terms of representation and opportunities?
Dr. Anjali rao: This decision is transformative. For years, women in the legal profession have faced barriers to leadership roles. By reserving the Treasurer post and encouraging a 30% quota in the Governing Council, the Court is creating a pathway for women to take on influential roles that were previously inaccessible. This not only enhances their representation but also ensures that their voices are heard in shaping the policies and direction of the bar associations.
Experience Criteria and Its Flexibility
Editor: The Court clarified that the 10-year experience criteria isn’t mandatory. Could you elaborate on why this flexibility is important?
Dr. Anjali Rao: The flexibility in the experience criteria is crucial to level the playing field. Many women lawyers, especially those who have taken career breaks for familial responsibilities, might find it challenging to meet the 10-year requirement.By making it non-mandatory, the Court ensures that capable and talented women, regardless of their career trajectory, can contest for these positions. This move aligns with the broader goal of inclusivity and equal chance.
Precedent Setting for Other Bar Associations
Editor: Do you see this decision setting a precedent for other bar associations across the contry?
Dr. Anjali Rao: Undoubtedly. This ruling builds on the Supreme Court’s earlier decisions in the Delhi high Court and District Bar Associations, where similar reservations were introduced. By extending this directive to Bengaluru, the Court is sending a clear message that gender equality in the legal profession is a national priority.I anticipate that other bar associations will follow suit, leading to a more balanced representation of women in leadership roles across the judiciary.
Challenges and the Road Ahead
Editor: What are some of the challenges that might arise in implementing this directive, and how can they be addressed?
Dr. Anjali Rao: one of the primary challenges is resistance to change. Some members of the legal fraternity may view these reservations as diminishing opportunities for others. It’s essential to foster awareness and sensitization about the importance of gender diversity in leadership. Additionally, bar associations must ensure transparency in the nomination and election processes to maintain trust and credibility. Continuous dialogue and engagement with all stakeholders will be key to overcoming these challenges.
Conclusion
Editor: Thank you, Dr. Rao, for your insights. It’s clear that this Supreme court decision is a significant milestone in the journey toward gender equality in the legal profession.
Dr. anjali Rao: Thank you. Indeed, this decision is a watershed moment. By taking bold steps to ensure women’s representation, the Supreme Court is not only addressing ancient imbalances but also paving the way for a more inclusive and equitable legal system. It’s a win for justice, fairness, and progress.