Women's Day 2025: The lawyers who fought for representation in Bar bodies

In a historic move last December, the Supreme Court of India called for the implementation of women's reservation in bar associations and councils across Delhi on a trial basis.

The State Bar Councils, established under Section 3 of the Advocates Act, 1961, are statutory bodies responsible for regulating the legal profession and legal education within their respective states. They also serve as representatives of advocates, working in their interest.

The need for representation of women lawyers in these bodies was clear. A study we did in 2021 revealed that only 2.04% of the elected representatives in State Bar Councils are women. Precious little has changed over the last four years or so, and the lack of representation is a feature of bar associations as well. Across states, it is rare to see women actively participating in bar rooms or holding administrative positions in these bodies.

Senior Advocate Indira Jaising had then revealed the possible reasons for this lack of representation, saying,

"The lack of women on Bar Councils is unsurprising, as elections demand significant financial resources and networking to gather votes. Women often lack such financial backing and have little inclination to engage in male-dominated networks, leading them to stay away. Even when they do attain positions of power, they face unfair sexist remarks, and any association with male colleagues is met with suspicion. So, why are we even surprised?"

Amidst calls to change the narrative, the Supreme Court in May 2024 directed the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) to adopt a rotational system of reservation for women in executive positions.

In February 2024, then SCBA President Adish Aggarwala assured the Delhi High Court that a general body meeting would be held within two months to discuss amending SCBA rules to reserve at least two Executive Committee posts for women lawyers. This assurance came in response to a plea by Advocate Yogamaya MG, who sought court directions for the meeting.

Yogamaya had earlier written to then Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, suggesting an amendment to reserve at least two positions for women in the SCBA's Executive Committee. In her plea before the Delhi High Court, she stressed that this amendment was vital for inclusivity, diversity and addressing issues like sexual harassment in the SCBA.

In response, the SCBA President informed the High Court that at least two months would be required to convene a general body meeting to discuss the issue, as notices would need to be sent to nearly 20,000 SCBA members. The High Court then disposed of the petition, noting the SCBA President's assurance.

This laid the groundwork for a similar petition to be filed before the Delhi High Court, calling for reservation for women lawyers in the Delhi High Court Bar Association (DHCBA).

So, in 2024, a group of women initiated the fight for inclusivity in Bar bodies, aiming to even the scales in the legal profession.

The petitioners in the case were Fozia Rahman, Aditi Chaudhary and Shobha Gupta. Rahman and Gupta had filed separate petitions, while Chaudhary participated as an intervenor in the proceedings before the Delhi High Court.

After the High Court declined to grant interim relief for the elections scheduled this year, Chaudhary challenged the order before the Supreme Court.

Gupta had filed a separate plea seeking reservation for women lawyers in all district bar associations, the Delhi High Court and the Bar Council of Delhi. Her plea was later tagged with the main petition in the Supreme Court.

Advocate Harshita, who represented Chaudhary, spoke to us in detail about the journey and emphasised that winning this case is just the beginning. The next step, she said, is to ensure that it leads to real, tangible change on the ground.

Motivated not just by statistics, but by lived reality

Speaking to Bar & Bench, Harshita remarked that her motivation to fight for this cause stemmed not just from statistics, but from lived experiences.

She shared that each time she walked into a courtroom, she was reminded that despite ongoing conversations about gender equality, leadership in the legal profession remained overwhelmingly male-dominated. The very system that upholds justice and fairness failed to reflect those values within its own ranks. She added that as a young lawyer, she often found herself as the only woman in the room.

"It wasn’t just uncomfortable—it was disheartening. It made me question: If decision-making spaces don’t reflect the diversity of the legal profession, how can they truly serve it? Every time I found myself isolated in a male-dominated space, it reinforced my resolve to change this—not just for myself, but for the many young women who will follow."

Advocate Sunieta Ojha, who also argued the matter, said that women have been noticeably absent from leadership positions in these associations - an issue that should concern not just women, but also senior members of the Bar.

She added that, ideally, steps should have been taken to actively include and encourage women by creating space for their participation, rather than relying on mere lip service, token gestures, or the notion that "if women want equality, they must fight for it."

Rahman emphasised that the fight for gender-based reservation in bar association leadership is vital for promoting diversity and inclusivity in the legal profession.

"Many advocates are driven by the desire to break down barriers that prevent women from taking on leadership roles. Research has shown that women face subtle forms of gender bias in the culture and in organizations, which interferes with their identity work as leaders," she added.

Resistance was hardly surprising

While speaking about the open resistance and hesitation from people who could have been allies in the journey, Harshita said that patriarchy instinctively defends itself.

"The moment you question the role men play in upholding systemic barriers, you’re met with a chorus of “not all men”—as if recognising systemic bias is a personal attack rather than an attempt to address historical inequities. But resistance is also a sign of progress; if the system weren’t shifting, it wouldn’t feel threatened."

She stated that the legal fraternity, despite the high ideals it espouses, is not exempt from the patriarchal structures that shape society.

"While lawyers are trained to argue, they often fail to examine their own biases. Many within the system resist change—not necessarily because they oppose equality, but because they are comfortable within a structure that benefits them."

For her, backing down was never an option. Instead, she chose to stand even firmer. The aim was to forge alliances where possible, confronting biases directly, and relentlessly pushing for change.

Rahman remarked that while dealing with resistance and hesitation from potential allies can be challenging, it also offers valuable insights into the legal profession's stance on gender equality.

Supreme Court's ruling brings about a fundamental shift

Talking about the impact of this ruling, Harshita stated that women will no longer just occupy seats in the room; they will actively shape the conversation, marking a shift from passive inclusion to true leadership.

"Greater diversity in leadership will lead to more inclusive decision-making, ensuring that long-overlooked issues - such as sexual harassment policies, childcare support for independent practitioners, and work-life balance - are finally given the attention they deserve."

More importantly, she noted that this change has the potential to create a lasting ripple effect.

"When young women lawyers see women in leadership, they will be encouraged to aspire to those roles themselves. Over time, this will challenge and break the perception that leadership is inherently male."

The ultimate goal, she remarked, is not just to have women in leadership positions, but to normalise their presence - so much so that it becomes the standard rather than the exception.

Ojha highlighted that the Supreme Court's order has sparked a much-needed change, and there is no turning back.

"The shift is already visible—serious women practitioners are stepping forward to contest. One contestant from Bangalore shared that while she was previously part of the association, she often felt ignored or silenced as a lone voice. Now, with more women joining, she is eager to return, determined to be more vocal and assertive. This is the change we seek—one that drives sensitisation and transformation throughout the process."

Exclusion operating on multiple levels

When asked about gender disparity prevailing in the legal profession, Harshita emphasised that while gender-based reservations address one power structure - patriarchy - they do not eliminate all barriers to inclusion. Exclusion operates on multiple levels, and true representation must account for caste, class, religion and economic diversity, as women are not a monolith.

To ensure genuinely inclusive representation, she suggested the following steps for bar associations:

Intersectional leadership: While gender-based reservations are a start, leadership should also reflect caste and class diversity to prevent dominance by elite groups.

Financial accessibility in elections: Running for bar association leadership requires significant financial resources. Introducing a cap on election spending and providing financial support for candidates from underprivileged backgrounds can create a more level playing field.

Structured mentorship programs: Many first-generation lawyers, particularly from marginalised communities, lack access to the networks and mentorship opportunities that others take for granted. Institutionalised mentorship programs can help bridge this gap.

Inclusive decision-making: Representation is not just about who holds leadership positions, but also about ensuring that historically marginalised groups have a voice in decision-making, even if they do not yet have a seat at the table.

She said that true inclusivity means not just accommodating women in leadership, but actively reshaping the legal profession to reflect them.

"This change won’t happen by chance—it will happen because they will make it happen, redefining the very structure of leadership, not just seeking a seat at the table."

Ojha added,

"Women won’t host food parties to win elections, but they will certainly invest association funds in creating lasting public utility assets for the benefit of lawyers. That’s the vision the Court placed its faith in when it ordered the reservation of treasure seats across the Bar. I trust and believe that a new era of change has begun."

What is interesting to note here is that the petitions have been made public to inspire women in other states to take up this fight in their own jurisdictions.

In fact, change is already afoot in Karnataka, with the Advocates Association, Bengaluru (AAB) cancelling its polls in light of a Supreme Court order. The Court ordered AAB to ensure representation of women lawyers in its governing council by reserving at least 30 percent of seats. A Bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh also directed the lawyers' body to reserve the post of the Treasurer in its governing body exclusively for women candidates.

"With Bangalore having already set a precedent, we are ready to support similar movements elsewhere," said Harshita.