New Delhi: The Supreme Court has refused to entertain a petition seeking a mandatory reservation of seats for lawyers belonging to Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST) in the State Bar Councils and the Bar Council of India (BCI). The Court held that introducing such a quota falls within the domain of the Parliament and cannot be enforced through a judicial order.
The Bench, comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi, observed that unlike the constitutional mandate for reservations in legislative bodies (under Articles 330 and 332), there is no explicit provision in the Advocates Act, 1961 for caste-based reservation in professional regulatory bodies.
The petition, filed by the Universal Dr. Ambedkar Advocates Association, argued that Section 3(2)(b) of the Advocates Act, which mandates "proportional representation" in Bar Council elections via the single transferable vote, should be interpreted to include quotas for marginalized communities. The petitioner contended that the lack of reservation has led to a historic exclusion of SC/ST lawyers from the leadership of statutory legal bodies.
Dismissing the writ petition, the Bench clarified the limits of judicial intervention. The Court noted that while it has recently pushed for women's reservation (30%) in Bar bodies based on "constitutional ethos" and consensus, the specific demand for SC/ST reservation involves amending the statute itself.
"We find it difficult to issue a mandamus to provide reservation, especially in the absence of an express provision for the same. It is for the Parliament to decide."
The Court disposed of the petition, granting liberty to the petitioners to approach the "competent authority" (Union Government/Law Commission) to seek an amendment to the Advocates Act.
This judgment draws a clear line between "judicial activism" and "legislative domain." While the Supreme Court has been proactive in reforming Bar Council elections—recently ordering a 30% quota for women and reducing nomination fees for differently-abled lawyers—it has stopped short of rewriting the law to introduce caste-based quotas. The ball is now in Parliament's court to decide if the legal profession's regulatory bodies should mirror the social diversity mandates of the legislature.