$~48 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 27.03.2026 + LPA 161/2026 & CM APPL. 19155/2026 RAMESH CHANDRA SINGH .....Appellant Through: Appellant-in-person.

versus BAR COUNCIL OF DELHI AND ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Preetpal Singh, Ms. Tanupreet Kaur, Ms. Medha Sharma, Ms. Simran Kumar, Ms. Pooja and Mr.

Gaurav, Advocates for BCI.

CORAM:

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA TEJAS KARIA, J. (Oral

1. The present intra court Appeal has been filed being aggrieved by the Order dated 19.03.2026 (“Impugned Order”) in W.P.(C) 3525/2026 (“Writ Petition”), whereby the Writ Petition, seeking a direction to Respondent No. 1 / Bar Council of Delhi (“BCD”) to clarify that 6 seats are reserved for advocates with less than 10 years of practice, was dismissed.

2. The Appellant-in-person submitted that the Appellant is a practicing advocate and a candidate for the member in the BCD Election 2026. The Appellant challenged the notification dated 24.12.2025 issued by BCD, whereby out of 23 total posts for the BCD Election 2026, 12 posts were reserved for the advocates with over 10 years of experience, and 5 posts were reserved for female advocates. Accordingly, the Appellant prayed in the Writ Petition that the remaining 6 posts should be reserved exclusively for young advocates with less than 10 years of practice.

3. It is the case of the Appellant that BCD has reserved 12 posts for advocates with over 10 years of practice and allowed senior advocates, those who are covered under the reserved category of 12 posts to also contest for the remaining unreserved 6 posts. According to the Appellant, this would result in squeezing out the young practitioners, violating the principles of fair representation under the Advocates Act, 1961 (“Advocates Act”) and also infringement of the Fundamental Rights of the Appellant and other similarly situated young advocates under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, 1950 (“Constitution of India”).

4. The Appellant has submitted that the Writ Petition was wrongly dismissed vide the Impugned Order on the grounds of delay, latches and not finding any ‘vested right’ for the reservation sought by the Appellant. The Appellant has relied upon Section 3(2)(b) of the Advocates Act, which provides as under:

“3. State Bar Councils.―

(2) A State Bar Council shall consist of the following members, namely:―

*** *** ***

(b) in the case of a State Bar Council with an electorate not exceeding five thousand, fifteen members, in the case of a State Bar Council with an electorate exceeding five thousand but not exceeding ten thousand, twenty members, and in the case of a State Bar Council with an electorate exceeding ten thousand, twenty-five members, elected in accordance with the system of proportional representation by means of the single transferable vote from amongst advocates on the electoral roll of the State Bar Council:

Provided that as nearly as possible one-half of such elected members shall, subject to any rules that may be made in this behalf by the Bar Council of India, be persons who have for at least ten years been advocates on a State roll, and in computing the said period of ten years in relation to any such person, there shall be included any period during which the person has been an advocate enrolled under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926).”

5. The Appellant submitted that the Advocates Act stipulates election by proportional representation and asserts that failure to reserve the remaining seats for junior advocates undermines this principle. The Appellant contends that the current electoral structure results in an unequal environment, compelling junior advocates to compete in a general pool predominantly occupied by senior members, thereby contravening the doctrine of equality as articulated under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

6. Furthermore, the Appellant submitted that as counting of votes is presently underway for the BCD Election 2