2 hrs ago
Supreme Court Seeks Review of State Bar Council Strength
The Supreme Court is looking at whether State Bar Councils should have more elected members.
These councils currently have a maximum of 25 elected members.
Rohit Pandey says this limit is too small because many more lawyers now vote in council elections.
He pointed to Delhi, which has about two lakh registered advocates.
Pandey received 2,259 votes but did not win one of the 25 seats.
His petition also questioned how a rule for 30% representation of women lawyers was applied.
The judges said changing the councils’ size may require changing the law.
They asked the Attorney General to consider the issue before the court decides what to do next.
The Supreme Court asked Attorney General R. Venkataramani to consider increasing elected membership in State Bar Councils.
State Bar Councils are currently capped at 25 elected members under the Advocates Act, 1961.
Petitioner Rohit Pandey argued that the cap no longer provides proportionate representation as the number of advocates has grown.
Pandey said he received 2,259 votes in the 2026 Bar Council of Delhi election but missed the required quota by 63.5 votes.
The petition also challenged how the court’s 30% women’s representation direction was implemented in State Bar Councils.
- Who
- The Supreme Court bench of Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana, Attorney General R. Venkataramani, and petitioner advocate Rohit Pandey.
- What
- The court asked the Attorney General to consider a plea seeking larger elected State Bar Councils and also challenging the implementation of 30% women’s representation.
- Where
- The matter was heard by the Supreme Court in New Delhi.
- When
- The hearing took place on Thursday; the petition refers to the 2026 Bar Council of Delhi elections.
- Why
- The petitioner argued that the 25-member limit under the Advocates Act, 1961, no longer provides adequate representation as the number of advocates has increased.
Petitioner’s Representation Argument
Statutory and Judicial-Limit Concerns
Size of State Bar Councils
Petitioner’s Representation Argument
Rohit Pandey argued that the 25-member limit is inadequate because the number of advocates and voters has increased substantially, citing Delhi’s roughly two lakh registered advocates.
Statutory and Judicial-Limit Concerns
The court noted that changing the statutory composition of State Bar Councils raises limits on judicial intervention and may require consideration within the existing legal framework.
Women’s Representation Mechanism
Petitioner’s Representation Argument
The petition challenged the method used to implement the 30% representation requirement, noting that a woman candidate with 265 votes was declared elected under that mechanism.
Statutory and Judicial-Limit Concerns
The article does not state a detailed defense of the implementation, but the issue arises from a Supreme Court direction being applied within the councils’ existing statutory structure.
Use of Constitutional Powers
Petitioner’s Representation Argument
Senior counsel supporting the petition argued that Article 142 of the Constitution could not be used to issue a direction contrary to the statutory framework.
Statutory and Judicial-Limit Concerns
The court emphasized its awareness of judicial limitations and referred the issue to the Attorney General for consideration.
Key facts
- Current membership cap
- State Bar Councils are capped at 25 elected members under the Advocates Act.
- Law involved
- The Advocates Act was enacted in 1961.
- Delhi advocate electorate
- The plea said the Bar Council of Delhi has about two lakh registered advocates.
- Petitioner’s votes
- Rohit Pandey received 2,259 votes in the 2026 Bar Council of Delhi election.
- Shortfall
- Pandey said he fell 63.5 votes short of the required quota.
- Women’s representation
- The petition challenged the implementation of a Supreme Court direction for 30% representation of women advocates.
- Next step
- The court said it would consider the matter further if the Attorney General took a contrary view.
Quotes
Justice Joymalya Bagchi
Supreme Court judge who was part of the bench hearing the petition
“We are absolutely aware of the judicial limitation, and that's why (we are) requesting the Attorney General”
deccanchronicle.com
Sources
Related news
Collegium Recommends Three High Court Chief Justices for Supreme Court
Supreme Court Limits Manan Mishra’s BCI Role Until Elections
Supreme Court Split Over Election Commissioner Appointment Law Reference
Supreme Court Allows Rajasthan Cricket Poll, Blocks Result Declaration
Delhi High Court Replaces Points System for Senior Advocate Designations
Supreme Court Orders BCI Consultation on Policy Decisions
Gwalior High Court Remands OBC Certificate Case for Fresh Review
Vijaya Reddy plea could help Congress secure Khairatabad seat
Old Aadhaar Address Usually Does Not Affect New Property Ownership
Video Warning Helps Mumbai Man Foil ₹12 Lakh Digital Scam
CJI Kant Says AI Can Aid Courts, Never Replace Judges
