Back
Hopes Will Voluntarily Adopt 30% Women Representation
The on Wednesday issued notice on a plea seeking 30% representation for women in the (BCI), while expressing its earnest hope that the apex regulatory body would voluntarily pass a resolution to that effect. A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V. Mohana observed that since the Court’s earlier directions had already ensured minimum 30% women representation in , the BCI—as the supreme governing body of the legal profession—should not lag behind.
“We are eagerly looking forward that a resolution will come from them (BCI) resolving that,” the Chief Justice remarked during the hearing, adding in a lighter vein: “It can’t happen that in State Assembly, there is a woman Member, but in Parliament there is none.” The observation underscores the Court’s expectation that the BCI, like Parliament, must reflect the gender diversity already achieved at the state level.
The Hearing: Submissions and Quips
, appearing for applicant-advocate , argued that the post of BCI Chairperson should be reserved for a woman when the elected body is reconstituted. “This time, let there be first woman Chairperson of BCI. Most of the problem would be solved… Let there be a woman Judge nominated… should set that example,” she submitted, proposing that the chairperson could be a woman for a fixed term of one to two years, after which a man could take charge by rotation.
Gupta further urged the Court to direct that the offices of Secretary and Treasurer in both the BCI and all be earmarked for women as a beginning step. When the Chief Justice noted that the Court was expecting a from the BCI, the senior counsel reminded the bench that this had been the Court’s expectation since the inception of the matter.
, supporting the plea, quoted former United Kingdom Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher: “When she wanted a speech, she would go to a man, but when she wanted to get work done, she’d go to a woman.” The light-hearted remark drew appreciative laughter in the courtroom but also underscored the serious message about women’s efficacy in leadership roles.
Background: The August 2026 Order
The plea builds on the ’s landmark order of , which directed that every State Bar Council must have a minimum 30% women representation—20% through and 10% through . Under that mechanism, two women are to be co-opted to each State Bar Council by the Chief Justice of the jurisdictional High Court, in consultation with elected members. Eligible categories include former women High Court judges and senior women advocates.
However, the applicant argues that this reform may remain confined to the state level because of the manner in which the BCI is constituted under . The provision provides for the Attorney General for India and Solicitor General of India as , along with one member elected by each State Bar Council from amongst its members. Since each State Bar Council sends only one elected representative to the BCI, the 30% representation achieved at the state level does not automatically translate into similar representation in the BCI. The applicant warns that the BCI could potentially have no elected woman member, or only one or two, despite every State Bar Council having 30% women.
A Question of Structure: Proposed
To bridge this gap, the applicant has proposed an interim constitutional mechanism. One suggestion is that 30% of the BCI’s members be women nominated from different on a —with one set of sending women representatives initially and another set replacing them after two years. The plea also seeks directions for the of the BCI and for ensuring of the apex regulatory body.
During the hearing, Gupta expressed hope that former judge Justice Jaishree Thakur—who has been co-opted as a member of the —could become the first woman Chairperson of the BCI. “She is one of the strongest possible persons,” Gupta remarked.
Objection Rejected: CJI Defends Justice Thakur
An objection was raised against Justice Thakur’s on the ground that she had earlier served as the for the State Bar Council elections, and arising from that process are pending before an headed by former judge Justice Hima Kohli. The bench, however, outrightly rejected the objection. Chief Justice Surya Kant called Justice Thakur “one of the finest and strongest judges” and questioned the objectors: “What’s wrong with you people? They are so happy that she is there. People are afraid of her.”
The strong endorsement from the Chief Justice signals the Court’s willingness to support women leaders who are perceived as capable and firm, and it also reflects a broader judicial discomfort with procedural objections that could delay gender representation reforms.
Legal Implications and the Road Ahead
The case raises fundamental about gender equality in professional regulatory bodies. The ’s preference for a from the BCI suggests a collaborative approach rather than a coercive mandate, but the indicates that the Court is prepared to intervene if the BCI fails to act. The under Section 4(1) of the Advocates Act may require either or an interim to ensure that the gender parity achieved at the state level is not lost in the apex body.
If the Court ultimately directs the BCI to implement 30% representation, it would mark a significant step toward of the legal profession. The BCI, which regulates legal education, professional standards, and the conduct of advocates, has historically been male-dominated. A woman Chairperson—especially one with the judicial experience of Justice Thakur—could bring a fresh perspective to issues such as sexual harassment at the bar, maternity leave for advocates, and equal opportunities in litigation.
Impact on Legal Practice
For legal practitioners, the case underscores the growing demand for systemic gender reforms within the profession. The Court’s earlier order for has already led to the of several women judges and senior advocates, increasing their visibility and influence. Extending similar reforms to the BCI would ensure that women have a voice in national-level policy decisions affecting the entire legal fraternity.
The plea also proposes reserving the offices of Secretary and Treasurer for women for two consecutive terms—a measure that, if adopted, would create a pipeline of women leaders in both state and national bar councils. This could encourage more women to contest elections and take up administrative roles, gradually normalising gender diversity in legal governance.
Conclusion
The ’s hearing on Wednesday marks another milestone in the ongoing struggle for gender equality in India’s legal profession. By expressing confidence in the BCI’s ability to voluntarily adopt a resolution, the Court has placed the onus on the regulatory body to demonstrate its commitment to inclusivity. However, the ensures that judicial oversight remains in place. The legal community now awaits the BCI’s response, with many hoping that the newly elected members will seize the opportunity to make history by electing the first woman Chairperson of the .
