SC Asks AG to Consider Larger Bar Councils
The Supreme Court asked Attorney General R. Venkataramani to consider a plea seeking an increase in the elected strength of State Bar Councils.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday asked Attorney General R. Venkataramani to consider a plea seeking an increase in the elected strength of State Bar Councils, currently capped at 25 members under the Advocates Act.
A bench of Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana was hearing a petition by advocate Rohit Pandey, who challenged the adequacy of the existing strength in view of the substantial increase in the number of advocates over the decades.
The plea said membership limits under the Advocates Act, enacted in 1961, had not kept pace with the manifold increase in the electorate of State Bar Councils over the decades.
Pandey’s counsel cited the Bar Council of Delhi, which, according to the plea, has about two lakh registered advocates, and argued that its elected body should provide adequate and proportionate representation.
Pandey contested the 2026 Bar Council of Delhi elections and secured 2,259 votes.
According to his plea, he fell short of the required quota by 63.5 votes and failed to secure a place among the council’s 25 members.
The petition also challenged the way the Supreme Court’s direction for 30 per cent representation of women advocates was implemented in State Bar Councils.
It said a woman candidate who secured 265 votes was declared elected under the mechanism adopted to meet the requirement.
Senior advocate Vikas Singh and other senior counsel supplemented the petitioner’s submissions, arguing that Article 142 of the Constitution could not be invoked to issue a judicial direction contrary to the statutory framework.
The court indicated that it was conscious of the limits of judicial intervention in a matter involving a change in the statutory composition of State Bar Councils.
“We are absolutely aware of the judicial limitation, and that's why (we are) requesting the Attorney General,” Justice Bagchi said.
The court said it would consider the matter further if the attorney general took a contrary view.