Today, the Supreme Court observed that its earlier directive mandating minimum representation of women in the Senior Executive Committee of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) had been successfully implemented, as three of the six elected members are women.

A bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice KV Viswanathan clarified that no further reservation is now required. The Court emphasized that the intention behind its previous order was to ensure representation, not to enforce strict reservation.

“We are informed that out of six candidates declared elected, three are women candidates. That being so, it is clarified that the object of minimum representation to be given to the women candidates among the Senior Executive Members has been successfully achieved. No further reservation is required,” the bench noted.

This clarification pertains to the Court’s earlier order dated May 6, 2025, which directed that the SCBA elections be held on May 20, 2025, with specific provisions for women’s representation: the post of Secretary was to be reserved exclusively for a woman, and 1/3rd of the posts in both the Executive Committee (3 out of 9) and the Senior Executive Committee (2 out of 6) were to be earmarked for women.

The confusion arose after four women contested for the six Senior Executive Member positions, and three of them were declared elected. Advocate Kumud Lata Das mentioned the matter before the Court, pointing out that the SCBA Election Committee declared results based purely on merit, without applying the 33% reservation directive. She noted that in previous elections, a male candidate ranked 8th had not been elected due to reservation, whereas a woman placed at 9th was selected instead.

Responding, Justice Kant remarked, “Let’s not be greedy now. Our object was to ensure representation. It’s only if a woman candidate does not make it... we don’t want any kind of heart-burning.” He also noted with satisfaction that the SCBA Secretary this year is a woman, calling it “a matter of pride.”

Justice Viswanathan clarified, “See it as minimum two (women) in the Senior Executive Committee.” He added that the order envisioned ensuring that at least two women are elected—only if that minimum isn’t achieved based on votes should candidates lower on the list be considered. “If all 9 are women candidates, that can be. But if nobody comes in the top 9, you keep going down till you get 3. That is the law,” he explained.

The bench reiterated that the term used in the order was "representation" and not "reservation." Justice Kant stated, “You don’t need reservation. You need only some space to come out and compete. If you win, very good. If you don’t, whosoever (woman candidate) is the highest scorer will be included.”

Advocate Das contended that the word “reservation” should be replaced with “representation” in the Court’s order if the interpretation is not being applied strictly. She also pointed out that in 2023, only one woman was elected to the Executive Committee, and she held the post of Treasurer.

Justice Kant responded that last year the issue was that women were not getting elected, which necessitated judicial intervention. “Very effective representation this time...very liberal...shows members are going by merit of candidates instead of this criteria...they must have got 1000s of votes,” he noted.

The minimum 1/3rd representation for women in SCBA posts was first introduced by the Court on an “experimental basis” through its May 2, 2024, order.

Case Title: Diary No. 13992/2023