IN DECEMBER 2025, the Supreme Court of India, led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant passed a historic decision, reserving thirty percent posts in all State Bar Councils for women. The Court passed these directions in a Public Interest Litigation, pointing out that the percentage of women representatives in the bar council was far smaller than the number of women practicing at the Bar.
The Court’s view was motivated to rectify the skewed ratio that resulted from gender bias, of the male-dominated bar against women candidates, which made it tough for women to compete without reservation with men in bar elections. The enthusiasm with which women lawyers have welcomed this opening, is evident from the large number of women who have stood as candidates in the Bar Council Election. For instance, since the 1960s, the Delhi Bar Council has only elected two women lawyers. But last February almost 80 women candidates contested and 30 percent of the Bar Council will consist of women for the first time in India’s history.
In many ways, a similar change has unfolded as far as the designation of women lawyers as senior advocates by various High Courts and the Supreme Court is concerned. Over the past four decades, most courts had designated only two or so women. This shift did not occur through reservations, but through the Supreme Court’s decision in Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India (2017) (‘Indira Jaising - I’), which set up, for the first time, an objective marking framework to assess candidates applying for designation (although on subjective satisfaction of the Permanent Committee). Following Indira Jaising - I, one witnessed a significant increase in the number of women being designated. In subjective systems, women tend to be more invisible and vulnerable to gender bias. However, one could argue, the more objective the selection system, the less the bias finds space to operate.
