"How Many Women Judges Do We Have": DHBCA's Submission Opposing Reservation For Women Advocates In Executive Committee Irks Apex Court

The Supreme Court today rebuked the Delhi High Court Bar Association (DHCBA) for its submission that certain women advocates were unfairly asking for one-third reservation in the executive committee of the Association when the proportion of women in the Bar was less than that and for its warning of larger consequences.

A two-Judge Bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan were hearing a batch of three Special Leave Petitions filed by women advocates seeking one-third reservation in the executive member body of the DHCBA. On September 26, the Court asked the DHCBA to hold a general body meeting within ten days and to consider the question of reservation of posts.

In its September 26 Order, the Court asked the DHCBA to consider reserving the post of the treasurer "exclusively for women members of the Bar Association" and the "desirability" of reserving one more post of officer-bearer for women. "Similarly, out of 10 Executive Members, there shall be at least 3 women members. The General Body may also resolve that out of 3 women members of the Executive Committee, one at least will be a Senior Designated Advocate," the Court had said further.

In the last hearing on November 13, the Court asked the DHCBA to produce the video recording of the general body meeting. In that meeting, the proposal to reserve posts for women in the executive committee was rejected. In parts of the recordings played in Court today, some male advocates can be heard vehemently opposing the proposal.

Senior Advocate Meenakshi Lekhi, appearing for the DHCBA, contended, "There are only 22 per cent women lawyers in the (Delhi High Court) Bar and they are seeking more than 33 per cent reservation (in the executive committee of the DHCBA). And the Bar is electing 20 per cent on their own. This is going to open a Pandora's box because lawyers are questioning the Bench itself, on how many women judges do we have?"

To this Justice Kant sternly told Lekhi, "If you think that making this statement to the media and playing to the gallery is going to make any difference, you please repeat it ten times. Are you here to resolve the issue or just to put fuel to fire? Don't mess with our Court. Enough is enough. If this is the way the Bar will conduct itself, shame on you."

In an affidavit filed by the DHCBA, the association had said women members constitute only 22 percent of the total strength of the DHCBA, "therefore, there is no rationale in seeking a higher proportion of seats in the Executive Committee of the DHCBA." It had further stated that the association "has always reserved a post of 'lady member executive' in its executive committee".

In that affidavit, it also said there can be no reservation in a private association like the DHCBA and requested the Court that it be permitted to function according to its own rules and bye-laws since it is an autonomous and independent association.

Expanding on the submission about larger consequences by Lekhi, President of the DHCBA Senior Advocate Mohit Mathur told the Bench that after the Court passed its Order on September 26, representations were made before it by different groups seeking reservation.

Senior Advocate Geeta Luthra, appearing for Petitioner Fozia Rahman, who is herself an advocate and was present at the DHCBA general meeting, told the Court that the DHCBA has proposed the creation of a Joint Treasurer's post to be occupied by a woman advocate. The Petitioners, which include Senior Advocate Shobha Gupta and Advocates Fozia Rahman and Aditi Chaudhary, called it "almost like a symbolic post".

Advocate Fozia Rahman's petition argues that there is a lack of gender diversity in the leadership positions of the association and the association's failure to implement affirmative action perpetuates gender imbalance and discrimination in the Bar.

Cause Title: Fozia Rahman v. Bar Council of Delhi [SLP(C) 24485/2024]