Institute of Legal and Management Studies

The Supreme Court on Thursday (May 22) observed that its direction for minimum representation of women in the posts of Senior Executive Members of the Supreme Court Bar Association has been fulfilled, as three out of six elected candidates are women.

A bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice KV Viswanathan said that no further reservation is required in the Senior Executive and clarified that the object of the earlier order was to ensure representation, not to enforce strict reservation.

The issue pertained to reservations in posts of Senior Executive Members for women lawyers, as required by the Court's earlier order dated May 6, 2025. The Court had directed that elections to the SCBA be held on May 20, 2025, and the post of Secretary be exclusively reserved for a woman candidate, 1/3rd of the posts in the Executive Committee (3 out of 9) and Senior Executive Committee (2 out of 6) be reserved for women.

The confusion arose as four women contested for the Senior Executive Member posts, and three were declared winners.

The court today clarified that the order has to be interpreted to mean that at least 2 women should be Senior Executive Members out of total 6. If, by way of votes, there aren't 2 women Senior Executive Members, then only women's reservation is needed.

Today, Advocate Kumud Lata Das mentioned the matter raising the grievance that although the Court had ordered 33 percent reservation for women, the SCBA Election Committee declared the results for Senior Executive Member posts based on merit and not on the basis of reservation. She said four women had contested this year, and two of them were placed at position nos. 1 and 2.

Justice Kant noted, “Out of 6 elected, 3 are women.”

Advocate Das stated that candidate Ashok Panigrahi was at No. 5, and that posts No. 5 and 6 in the Senior Executive Committee were reserved positions.

However, Justice Kant replied, “Let's not be greedy now. Our object was to ensure representation. It's only if woman candidate does not make it...we don't want any kind of heart-burning…Secretary of Bar is a woman candidate this time, it's a matter of pride.”

Advocate Das responded that in the previous year, a male candidate placed at No. 8 had not been elected due to reservation and the woman candidate placed at no. 9 was elected.

Justice Viswanathan said, “Your understanding of the order is wrong. Order says minimum 2 positions will be given.” Justice Kant clarified that the Court had deliberately avoided the term “reservation,” preferring the word “representation” instead.

He explained that if there aren't at least two women Senior Executive Member elected as per number of votes, the women candidates having the highest number of votes will be included. “If no one is elected, we go down to pick”, he said.

Das submitted that in 2023, there was only one woman in the Executive Committee, and she was the Treasurer. She said that if reservation was not being applied strictly, then the word “reservation” should be substituted with “representation.”

Das stated that her submissions were based on how the Election Committee had interpreted the Court's order and how the results were declared last year.

Justice Kant said that last year, the problem was that women were not getting elected and highlighted that that is not the case this year. “Very effective representation this time...very liberal...shows members are going by merit of candidate, instead of this criteria...they must have got 1000s of votes”, he said.

Last year, on May 2, 2024, the court mandated a minimum 1/3rd reservation for women in SCBA posts for that year's elections on an “experimental basis.”

Case no. – Diary No. 13992/2023

Case Title – Supreme Court Bar Association v. BD Kaushik