Supreme Court Declines to Direct SC/ST Reservation in Bar Council Elections

New Delhi:
In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court on Friday declined to issue directions for providing reservation to Scheduled Caste (SC) and Scheduled Tribe (ST) advocates in elections to State Bar Councils and the Bar Council of India (BCI). The Court held that such a policy decision can only be implemented through a legislative amendment to the Advocates Act, 1961, and not through judicial intervention.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Justice Suryakant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi dismissed a writ petition filed by the Universal Dr. Ambedkar Advocates Association, which sought proportional representation or interim reservation for SC/ST advocates under Section 3(2)(b) of the Advocates Act until an appropriate law was enacted.

Emphasising the doctrine of separation of powers, the Bench observed that courts cannot issue a writ of mandamus in the absence of a clear statutory provision. While acknowledging the constitutional goal of inclusivity and social justice, the Court underlined that altering the electoral framework of professional self-regulatory bodies falls squarely within the legislative domain.

“This is a matter that requires a clear statutory mandate. In the absence of an express provision in the Advocates Act, it would be difficult for this Court to direct reservation through judicial orders,” the Bench observed.

Referring to the ongoing Bar Council elections in several states, Chief Justice Suryakant made an oral remark noting the practical constraints, stating that “at this stage, it is too late” to introduce such changes.

The petition had argued that while measures promoting inclusivity for women and persons with disabilities have gradually been introduced, SC/ST advocates continue to remain underrepresented in the legal profession, reinforcing historical exclusion in an institution that plays a crucial role in access to justice.

The controversy gained momentum following proceedings before the Telangana High Court, where the Telangana State Bar Council had supported the demand for SC/ST reservation and forwarded a representation to the Bar Council of India. However, no amendment has yet been made to the Advocates Act to incorporate such provisions.

While disposing of the petition, the Supreme Court granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate authority for redressal. The Court also left open the possibility of future legislative or administrative action but made it clear that no interim relief or directions could be granted at this stage.

The judgment reiterates the limits of judicial intervention in policy matters and reaffirms that affirmative action within professional bodies must be rooted in explicit legislative backing rather than court-mandated directives.