New Delhi, Nov 18 (UNI) The Supreme Court on Monday came down heavily on the officials of the Delhi High Court Bar Association (DHCBA), for not providing 33 percent reservation to women lawyers in bar association elections despite the Top Court orders.
A Bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing a batch of Special Leave Petitions (SLP) filed by women advocates seeking one-third reservation in the executive member body of the DHCBA.
The bench strongly criticized the DHCBA for defying its orders to provide 33% reservation for women lawyers in the bar association elections.
In its September 26 order, the Apex Court had directed the DHCBA to hold a general body meeting within ten days to deliberate on reservations for women.
The Court had proposed reserving the treasurer’s post exclusively for women, along with one other office-bearer position, and mandated that three of the ten executive committee members must be women, with at least one being a Senior Designated Advocate.
During the November 13 hearing, the Apex Court had demanded the video recording of the general body meeting, which revealed vehement opposition from male members to the proposal for reservations.
Today, excerpts of the recordings were played in the courtroom, showcasing the resistance by male members in granting reservations to their female counterparts.
Advocate Meenakshi Lekhi, representing the DHCBA, argued that women comprise only 22% of the association and elect 20% of the executive committee members without reservations.
Lekhi claimed the demand for 33% reservation was excessive and warned of broader repercussions, citing questions over gender diversity in the judiciary itself.
She further said, “This is going to open a Pandora’s box because lawyers are questioning the Bench itself, on how many women judges do we have?”
Responding to the opposition, Justice Kant reprimanded the association, saying, “ “If you think making inflammatory statements and playing to the gallery will help, think again.
“Don’t mess with this Court. Enough is enough. If the Bar behaves like this, it’s shameful, ” the bench said.
The DHCBA, in an affidavit, said that it had always reserved a “lady member executive” post but resisted additional reservations, asserting its autonomy as a private association.
Senior Advocate Mohit Mathur, DHCBA President, emphasized that the Court’s directive had prompted other groups to seek similar reservations, complicating the situation.
Countering this, Senior Advocate Geeta Luthra, representing one of the petitioners, criticized the association’s token gesture of proposing a “Joint Treasurer” post for women as insufficient and symbolic.
The petitioners, Senior Advocate Shobha Gupta and Advocates Fozia Rahman and Aditi Chaudhary argued that the lack of affirmative action perpetuates gender imbalance and discrimination in the legal profession.
Advocate Rahman’s petition highlighted the systemic underrepresentation of women in leadership roles within the DHCBA.
The Apex Court will continue to examine the association’s compliance with its orders in upcoming hearings.
