DHBCA’s submission against reserving spots for women advocates in the executive committee annoys the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court criticized the Delhi High Court Bar Association (DHCBA) for claiming that some women advocates were unjustly demanding one-third of the seats on the executive committee, given that the number of women in the Bar is lower. A two-Judge Bench, consisting of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, was reviewing three Special Leave Petitions from women advocates who wanted this reservation. On September 26, the Court instructed the DHCBA to hold a general meeting within ten days to discuss the reservation of positions. The Court suggested that the treasurer’s position be reserved solely for women and considered reserving another officer position for them. It also stated that at least three out of ten executive members should be women, with one being a Senior Designated Advocate.
During the last hearing on November 13, the Court requested the video of the general meeting where the proposal for women’s reservations was turned down. In the recordings played in Court, some male advocates were heard strongly opposing the idea. Senior Advocate Meenakshi Lekhi, representing the DHCBA, argued that only 22 percent of lawyers in the Delhi High Court are women, yet they are asking for more than 33 percent of the executive committee. She warned that this could lead to complications, as lawyers are questioning the number of women judges on the Bench.
Justice Kant firmly addressed Lekhi, saying, “If you believe that making this statement to the media will change anything, feel free to repeat it ten times. Are you here to solve the problem or just to escalate it? Don’t interfere with our Court. This has gone too far. If this is how the Bar behaves, it’s shameful.” In an affidavit submitted by the DHCBA, it was noted that women make up only 22 percent of the total membership, stating, “therefore, there is no reason to demand a larger share of seats in the Executive Committee.” The affidavit also mentioned that the association has always set aside a position for a ‘lady member executive’ in its committee.
Additionally, it argued that there should be no reservations in a private group like the DHCBA and requested the Court to allow it to operate under its own rules and regulations, as it is an independent body. Discussing the broader implications of Lekhi’s comments, DHCBA President Senior Advocate Mohit Mathur informed the Bench that after the Court’s Order on September 26, various groups approached it seeking reservations.
Senior Advocate Geeta Luthra, representing Petitioner Fozia Rahman, who attended the DHCBA general meeting, informed the Court that the DHCBA has suggested creating a Joint Treasurer’s position for a woman advocate. The Petitioners, including Senior Advocate Shobha Gupta and Advocates Fozia Rahman and Aditi Chaudhary, described this as “almost like a symbolic position.” Advocate Fozia Rahman’s petition claims that there is a lack of gender diversity in leadership roles within the association, and the failure to take affirmative action continues to foster gender inequality and discrimination in the Bar.
Cause Title: Fozia Rahman v. Bar Council of Delhi [SLP(C) 24485/2024]
