The Supreme Court of India on January 27, 2026, declined to entertain a writ petition seeking reservation for Scheduled Caste (SC) and Scheduled Tribe (ST) advocates in State Bar Councils. The Bench, headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant along with Justices R. Mahadevan and Joymalya Bagchi, observed that the plea was filed belatedly, after the election process for State Bar Councils had already commenced, and that the petitioners must first approach the appropriate statutory authorities.
The petition was filed in Ram Kumar Gautam and Others v. Union of India, raising important questions about caste-based reservation within professional regulatory bodies, the scope of the Advocates Act, 1961, and the limits of judicial intervention in electoral processes of Bar Councils.
Background of the Case
The petitioners sought a direction for providing reservation to SC/ST lawyers in State Bar Councils, arguing that such affirmative action was necessary to ensure adequate representation of historically marginalised communities within the legal profession’s governing bodies. They relied heavily on the Supreme Court’s earlier intervention directing representation for women advocates in State Bar Councils, despite the Advocates Act being silent on such measures.
According to the petitioners, if the Court could mandate representation for women lawyers, it could similarly extend reservation benefits to SC/ST advocates to promote inclusivity and diversity in Bar Council governance.
However, the timing of the petition proved to be a critical factor in the Court’s decision.
Supreme Court’s Observations on Delay and Electoral Process
At the outset, the Bench noted that elections to State Bar Councils had already been announced. Emphasising the settled principle that courts ordinarily do not interfere once an election process has begun, the Supreme Court held that it was too late to seek such relief for the ongoing polls.
CJI Surya Kant expressed strong displeasure at the timing of the plea, observing that Bar Councils have existed since 1961 and that no such challenge had been seriously pursued earlier. The Court indicated that seeking relief at the eleventh hour, after elections were notified, undermined both the electoral process and institutional stability.
The Bench made it clear that even if the issue raised was of significance, procedural discipline and respect for statutory mechanisms could not be bypassed.
“Representation Is Not Reservation”: Court Draws a Clear Distinction
One of the most significant aspects of the hearing was the Court’s clarification regarding its earlier directions on women lawyers in Bar Councils. Responding to the petitioner’s argument that women were granted “reservation” through judicial orders, the CJI categorically rejected this characterisation.
The Bench clarified that the Supreme Court had not granted reservation to women advocates, but had only mandated minimum representation. The direction for 30% representation of women lawyers, issued in December 2025, was framed as a measure to correct structural imbalance and ensure participatory governance, not as a constitutionally recognised reservation akin to those under Articles 15(4) or 16(4).
This distinction is crucial. Reservation implies a formal quota grounded in constitutional or statutory provisions, whereas representation, as envisaged by the Court, was a regulatory measure to make professional bodies more inclusive without altering the statutory framework of the Advocates Act, 1961.
Sharp Remarks by the Chief Justice
During the hearing, CJI Surya Kant made strong oral observations questioning the petitioners’ approach and expectations. He noted that members of SC/ST communities were already present across institutions including the judiciary, Parliament, and the Bar, and criticised the petitioners for seeking judicial intervention without first engaging with statutory authorities.
The Court emphasised that the relief granted to women lawyers came after prolonged litigation and sustained efforts over several years. In contrast, the present petition was filed only after elections were announced, seemingly with the expectation of immediate relief.
The Bench cautioned against treating judicial intervention as a shortcut to policy reform, reiterating that courts are not meant to distribute benefits “on a platter” without due process.
Direction to Approach Appropriate Authorities
Rather than dismissing the plea outright, the Supreme Court adopted a measured approach. The Bench granted liberty to the petitioners to approach the competent statutory authorities, such as the Bar Council of India or the concerned State Bar Councils, with a detailed representation.
The Court advised the petitioners to rely on the Supreme Court’s earlier orders on representation and place them before the authorities for consideration. The Bench expressed hope that the authorities would examine the issue seriously, considering the growing number and diversity of advocates across the country.
Importantly, the Court left the door open for future judicial review. It clarified that if the authorities failed to respond adequately, the petitioners could approach the Supreme Court again, particularly in relation to future elections.
Women’s Representation and Inclusive Measures in Bar Councils
In December 2025, the Supreme Court had directed that State Bar Councils ensure 30% representation of women lawyers, declaring the requirement “non-negotiable.” The Court further held that any shortfall in elected women members must be addressed through co-option.
Additionally, the Court has supported measures aimed at increasing participation of specially-abled lawyers in Bar Council elections. Following judicial encouragement, the Bar Council of India agreed to reduce nomination fees for candidates with disabilities, recognising economic barriers as a significant hurdle to participation.
These developments indicate a broader judicial approach favouring inclusivity in professional self-regulatory bodies, while remaining cautious about formal reservations without legislative backing.
Legal and Constitutional Implications
The refusal to entertain the plea underscores several important legal principles:
- Non-interference in ongoing elections: Courts consistently refrain from intervening once the electoral process has begun.
- Separation of powers: Policy decisions involving reservation generally fall within the domain of the legislature or statutory authorities, not the judiciary.
- Distinction between representation and reservation: Judicially mandated representation does not automatically translate into constitutionally recognised reservation.
- Exhaustion of alternative remedies: Petitioners are expected to first approach competent authorities before invoking the Court’s writ jurisdiction.
The judgment also highlights the limits of judicial activism in reforming professional bodies governed by statute.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision to decline entertaining the plea for SC/ST reservation in State Bar Councils reflects a careful balancing of inclusivity, institutional integrity, and constitutional limits. While acknowledging the importance of diversity and representation within the legal profession, the Court reiterated that such reforms must follow due process and statutory channels.
By granting liberty to approach competent authorities and permitting recourse to the Court in future elections, the Bench ensured that the issue remains open for deliberation without disrupting the ongoing electoral process. The ruling serves as a reminder that while the judiciary can catalyse reform, sustainable change in professional governance must be rooted in legislative intent and institutional engagement.
Also Read
