60% judicial officers are women; paradoxical for female lawyers to seek quota in chamber allotment: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Monday orally observed that nearly 60% of judicial officers across the country are women appointed solely on merit. In this context, the Court called it “paradoxical” for women lawyers to seek any preferential treatment in chamber allocation [Bhakti Pasrija & Ors v. Union of India & Ors]..A Bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi observed that if preferential chamber allocation is considered for women, similar consideration would also be needed for specially-abled persons."In our judicial service, almost 60% of officers are women. They are there not because of any reservation. There is no preference for them. It is solely on merit...That is why I find it a little bit paradoxical why you ask for any privilege. If we think of giving a preferential allocation, say for example, in the matter of chambers, then we should also think of specially-abled persons, because we wholeheartedly welcome them into the legal profession," Court observed..The Court was hearing a plea filed by a group of women advocates, including former office-bearers of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) and the Supreme Court Women Lawyers Association (SCWLA), seeking directions for the framing and implementation of a uniform, gender-sensitive policy for the allotment of professional chambers to women lawyers in the Supreme Court and across the country.The petitioners contended that while the current chamber allotment policy is facially neutral, it is substantively discriminatory. They argued that it fails to account for structural disadvantages faced by women lawyers, particularly first-generation practitioners without established legal networks.The plea thus urged the Court to frame and implement a gender-sensitive chamber allotment policy in the Supreme Court and other courts, including priority or quota-based reservation for women advocates in future allotments.They have also sought interim relief directing the construction and allotment of at least 100 independent cubicles for eligible women advocates currently on the SCBA waiting list..During the hearing, Justice Kant asked about the existing practice for allocation of chambers.“Is there any kind of reservation or preference?” he inquired.Senior Advocate Sonia Mathur, appearing for the petitioners, replied that there was none. She submitted that the Rohini Court was the only court where 10% of chambers were reserved for women. She further argued that there are eight petitioners in the matter, all with significant years of practice, yet none have been allotted chambers.Justice Kant orally observed that women lawyers have “successfully struggled” and noted that nearly 60% of judicial officers are women, appointed solely on merit. He called it “paradoxical” for women to seek preference in chamber allocation.Mathur countered that the plea seeks infrastructure benefits and has nothing to do with merit.Justice Surya Kant observed that the concept of chambers should be eliminated and replaced with workstations.He added that construction of a new Supreme Court building has formally begun, with provisions for separate women bar rooms, office-bearers’ rooms, canteens, libraries and all basic amenities, as well as escalators and other facilities for specially-abled persons, keeping long-term needs over the next 50 years in mind.Ultimately, the Court issued notices to the Central government, Supreme Court Bar Association, Bar Council of India and the Secretary-General of the Supreme Court of India.The Court listed the matter for further consideration on 17th November..Apart from Mathur, Advocates Bhakti Pasrija, Prernaa Singh, Savita Devi, Shubhi Bhardwaj, Manasi Sridhar and Divyesh Pratap Singh appeared for the petitioners..[Read Order].[Read Live Coverage]