Supreme Court expresses displeasure over DHCBA lawyer’s comment on representation of women in court

While hearing pleas seeking reservation for women lawyers in the Association of Advocates of the Delhi High Courtthe Supreme Court today expressed its grave displeasure over a comment made by the Association’s counsel regarding the representation of women on the Bench(s) of the Court.

Judge Surya Kant, part of a bank consisting of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, shouted out the comment, saying that if it was intended for the media and to be played on the stand, counsel was free to repeat it ten more times. However, the court did not want to do anything further and then hear the arguments in the case.

In particular, the DHCBA lawyer stated that there are only 22% female lawyers at the bar, but they want a reservation of more than 33%. “The Bar itself is choosing 20% ​​and is getting close to that number. This is going to open a Pandora’s box because people, especially lawyers, are questioning the Bench itself: how many women judges should we have?”, she noted.

To this, Judge Kant responded by saying, “If you think this statement to the media and playing to the gallery is going to make any difference, please repeat it ten times. You are here to solve the problem or here to just oil to throw on the fire.” !? Not (…) our Court! Enough is enough. If this is the way the Bar will behave, (shame on you)!”

In summary, the Court had earlier asked the DHCBA to consider reserving the post of Vice President for women lawyers in the upcoming elections. The court found it disappointing that there had not even been a single female bar president since 1962.

The Court then ordered that there should be a reservation for women for posts in DHCBA and directed that a meeting of the General Body of DHCBA be held to consider the advisability of reserving the post of treasurer for women members. In addition to reserving the position of Treasurer, GB had the discretion to consider the desirability of reserving 1 more post of office holder of the Order for female members.

Pursuant to this order, the DHCBA has filed a response seeking dismissal of the petitions and allowing the matter to proceed in the Delhi High Court (where the matter is pending). It was stated that a GBM was held on October 7, in which members of the General Board decided that they were not in favor of reservation in the seats of the Executive Committee of the DHCBA.

A few days ago, the High Court requested production of the video recording of the DHCBA GBM held on October 7.

Today the Court examined the videos submitted (three of the eight videos were considered relevant). One of the counsel for the petitioners informed the Court that during the meeting, the post of joint treasurer was proposed by the other side but the same is only symbolic.

Senior Advocate Mohit Mathuron behalf of DHCBA, insisted that on October 7, when the GBM was held, several members insisted that a supplementary agenda should first be submitted to the General Assembly, i.e. whether the members of the DHCBA were in favor of reserving a seat on the Executive Committee for each class of members in any form. Accordingly, the same was taken up and finally the members decided against any form of reservation.

The court adjourned the matter till November 29 and said it would hear arguments on the larger issue and then pass orders. Notably, the Delhi High Court has postponed the elections to the Executive Committee of DHCBA and all Bar Councils of all District Courts in the national capital until December 13.

Background

The Court is hearing three petitions seeking reservations for women lawyers in the bar associations of Delhi viz. Bar Council of Delhi (BCD), Delhi High Court Bar Association (DHCBA) and all district bar associations.

One of the petitions was filed by lawyer Shobha Gupta, who claims that under-representation of women in effective positions at BCD and other bar associations could have a negative impact on their rights and access to justice, and detract from the overall effectiveness of the legal system.

Gupta specifically sought directions for 33% reservation in the upcoming Bar Association elections of all law firms in Delhi and initially approached the Delhi High Court. But on September 11, the Supreme Court refused to grant interim measures and set the case for November 27.

Since the Delhi Bar elections were to be held on October 19 and no interim relief was granted, the prayers of the petitioners had become seemingly futile. It is against this backdrop that the present pleas were filed before the Supreme Court alleging that the process of elections has commenced with the declaration/finalization of the voters’ list.

A notice of the petitions was sent on September 20.

Earlier this year, the Supreme Court had ordered implementation of 33% women reservation in the MKBA elections.

Case Title: FOZIA RAHMAN Versus BAR COUNCIL OF DELHI, SLP(C) 24485/2024 (and related cases)