Back
Supreme Court's Women Order: BCI Keeps State Bar Council Meeting Direction in
The (BCI) has placed its direction to State Bar Councils in , halting the proposed meetings for co-opting women members. The decision follows the 's order in and concerns over before the .
A Swift Reversal
Just a day after issuing communication No. BCI:D:5204/2026 on , which directed all State Bar Councils to convene meetings to prepare a panel of four women members for , the BCI issued a follow-up notice on keeping the earlier direction in .
The communication had instructed councils to prepare a panel of eligible women members and submit it to the jurisdictional High Court Chief Justice, who would select two members.
The Supreme Court's Framework
The apex court's order directed that two women members be co-opted to State Bar Councils from specified categories. The court further directed that the Chief Justice of the jurisdictional High Court shall take into consideration all relevant factors and consult all elected members of the respective State Bar Council before making the decision.
The Supreme Court also tasked the , headed by former apex court judge Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, with considering issues concerning the methodology for calculating among contesting candidates, particularly women candidates.
Why the BCI Paused
The BCI noted that grievances and disputes concerning the election process — including issues affecting the exclusion, elimination, ranking, or of candidates — are pending or may come before the , Election Committees, Tribunals, or other authorities acting under the Supreme Court's directions.
"Any determination in such proceedings may have a bearing upon the
or status of a woman candidate and may consequently become relevant to the factual matrix pertaining to representation and
of women members in the concerned State Bar Council,"
the BCI stated.
The Council concluded that proceeding with its facilitative exercise
"may be premature and may give rise to avoidable overlapping processes or inconsistency with a subsequent determination of a
."
Key Observations
"In these circumstances, the considers that proceeding at this stage with the separate facilitative exercise contemplated by its communication dated , including identification and recommendation of names pursuant thereto, may be premature and may give rise to avoidable overlapping processes or inconsistency with a subsequent determination of a ."
"The , therefore, considers it appropriate, as a matter of and by way of , to preserve the present position and to await appropriate consideration and determination of such issues by the ."
What Happens Next
State Bar Councils have been instructed not to convene or proceed with the earlier meeting and to undertake no further consequential action. Any preliminary steps already taken pursuant to the communication must not proceed further, and any material or recommendation already prepared shall not be treated as final while the communication remains in .
The BCI's latest communication was issued
"solely to maintain
and consistency, to avoid parallel or potentially conflicting processes, and to ensure that the administrative exercise initiated by the
proceeds in
with the orders and directions of the Hon'ble
."
The development follows an application filed by Yogamaya M.G., the petitioner in the women's reservation case, contending that the BCI's circular overreached the Supreme Court's directions by introducing a four-member panel mechanism not contemplated by the apex court's order. The petitioner had sought a declaration that the BCI's circular was illegal and interfered with the court's order.
