The Supreme Court of India has issued a sharp wake-up call to the legal profession: if women continue to be shut out of leadership roles in bar councils, the system isn’t broken—it’s rigged. On November 26, 2025, a bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi directed the Bar Council of India (BCI) and all 21 State Bar Councils to explain why they’ve allowed six decades of total female exclusion to persist. The order came in response to a petition by advocate Yogamaya MG, who isn’t just asking for fairness—she’s demanding structural change before the next round of elections begins in January 2026.
Decades of Silence, One Number That Screams
Here’s the chilling fact: since the Bar Council of India was established in 1961, not a single woman has ever been elected to its 20-member body. Zero. Not one. Not even during the 2020–2025 term. That’s not an accident. It’s a pattern. And it’s not just the BCI. State-level councils, where most of the real power over bar admissions, disciplinary actions, and legal ethics rests, are barely better. In many, women make up less than 10% of elected members—even though they’re nearly half the practicing advocates.Yogamaya MG’s petition lays it bare: if no action is taken before Phase I of the upcoming elections—which start in January 2026 and run through April—women will be locked out for another five years. Five years. That’s how long the results of these elections bind the councils. And the clock is ticking. The court has set a hard deadline: replies from the BCI and all State Bar Councils must be filed by December 1, 2025. The next hearing? Also December 1. No delays. No extensions.
What’s Being Asked—and Why It Matters
This isn’t a request for tokenism. Yogamaya MG wants three concrete, enforceable changes:- 33% reservation for women candidates in all election phases across 16 states and Union Territories
- Mandatory minimum thresholds—no more ‘best effort’ promises
- Affirmative nomination systems, like list-based or quota-driven candidate selection
Why? Because the current system is stacked. Bar council elections are expensive, politicized, and dominated by well-connected networks. Many women—especially those balancing family responsibilities, lacking financial backing, or facing subtle (and sometimes overt) hostility—simply can’t compete. The petition doesn’t just cite statistics; it points to real-world barriers: courts without women’s restrooms, no childcare during proceedings, and no effective system to report sexual harassment. How can you lead a profession when the very spaces you’re supposed to work in don’t acknowledge your presence?
A Broader Movement, One Court at a Time
This case isn’t isolated. It’s the latest flashpoint in a growing legal reckoning over gender equity in India’s judiciary. In May 2024, the Supreme Court mandated that the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) reserve at least one-third of its executive posts—including the Treasurer position—for women. That decision wasn’t symbolic. It was operational. And it worked: women now hold key leadership roles in the SCBA for the first time in its history.Then came September 2024, when the Court issued notices to all 21 State Bar Councils, demanding proportional representation. Now, the same logic is being applied to the election machinery itself. In Gujarat, advocate Meena A. Jagtap filed a similar petition for 33% reservation—now slated for hearing in January 2026. And in Nagpur, the High Court Bar Association (HCBA) was told by the same Supreme Court bench to decide on its own women’s reservation policy by December 1. The message? Leadership isn’t optional. It’s expected.
What’s at Stake Beyond the Ballot
This isn’t just about fairness. It’s about legitimacy. Bar councils regulate who can practice law. They set ethical standards. They handle complaints. If half the profession is excluded from governing it, how can the system claim to represent justice? The Advocates Act of 1961 speaks of “proportional representation”—but for 64 years, that phrase has been ignored when it came to gender. Yogamaya MG argues that constitutional principles of equality under Article 14 and 15 must now be read into that statute. The Court hasn’t ruled yet—but its tone suggests it’s ready to listen.And here’s the quiet revolution: women advocates aren’t just asking for seats at the table. They’re demanding to redesign it. One petition at a time.
What’s Next?
December 1, 2025, is the day of reckoning. If the BCI and State Bar Councils offer vague assurances or delay tactics, the Court may intervene directly—perhaps even imposing reservation rules by judicial order. That would be unprecedented. But given the history, it might be the only way forward.Meanwhile, in courtrooms across India, female advocates are quietly preparing for the elections. Some are filing nominations. Others are organizing voter outreach. A few are even training younger women to run. Change doesn’t always come with a bang. Sometimes, it comes with a ballot paper—and a woman’s name on it.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why hasn’t the Bar Council of India had a single woman member since 1961?
Despite women making up nearly 50% of new advocates, systemic barriers—high election costs, male-dominated networks, lack of institutional support, and cultural bias—have kept women out. The BCI’s elections are not direct public votes but internal contests among practicing lawyers, where influence and financial backing often outweigh merit. No formal reservation system existed until now, and informal networks have perpetuated the status quo for over six decades.
What’s the difference between reservation and mandatory minimum thresholds?
Reservation means a fixed percentage of seats are reserved exclusively for women candidates, similar to affirmative action in education. Mandatory minimum thresholds require that a certain number of women must be nominated or elected—but don’t guarantee seats. The latter allows loopholes; the former enforces inclusion. Yogamaya MG argues that thresholds alone won’t work because they’ve been ignored for years.
How does this affect women lawyers outside the bar councils?
Bar councils control professional conduct, disciplinary actions, and even access to courtrooms. Without women in leadership, policies on harassment, childcare, and workplace safety remain unaddressed. A 2023 survey by the Indian Bar Association found that 68% of women lawyers reported being denied access to basic facilities in court complexes. Representation in governance directly shapes those conditions.
Could the Supreme Court impose reservation by order?
Yes. The Court has already done so with the Supreme Court Bar Association in 2024. If the BCI and State Bar Councils fail to act, the Court could invoke Article 142 (enforcement of constitutional rights) to issue binding directions. Legal scholars say this would be a landmark use of judicial power to correct institutional discrimination in professional bodies, setting a precedent for other bar associations and even medical councils.
What’s the timeline for these elections?
The Supreme Court has approved a five-phase election schedule across 16 states and Union Territories, with Uttar Pradesh and Telangana’s elections concluding by January 31, 2026. Phase I begins in early January. The December 1 hearing is critical—any ruling before then could reshape how candidates are nominated and ballots are counted.
Are there similar movements in other professions?
Yes. The Medical Council of India faces similar criticism over gender imbalance in leadership. In 2023, the Delhi High Court ordered the Bar Council of Delhi to submit a gender audit. Meanwhile, the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India introduced voluntary gender quotas in 2024. But legal bodies are under the most scrutiny because they regulate justice itself—and justice must be seen to be inclusive.