The Supreme Court on Wednesday directed the production of a video recording from the Delhi High Court Bar Association (DHCBA) General Body Meeting (GBM) held on October 7, 2024.

At this meeting, it was seen that the proposal to reserve a place for women in the Executive Committee of the association was rejected. The court scheduled the next hearing of the matter at noon on November 18, when the records will be examined to evaluate the discussions regarding the reservation issue. Senior Advocate and Chairman of DHCBA Mohit Mathur confirmed to the Court that he will submit the record on the next date of hearing.

a bench Justice Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan He stated that he wanted to examine whether the reservation offer had been rejected after sufficient deliberation.

“List dated 18.11.2024. It will be picked up at 12:00 noon. Mr. Mohit Mathur learned that the Senior Advocate and President of the Delhi High Court Bar Association has fairly agreed to prepare the video recording of the General Body Meeting held on 07.10.2024 on the next date of hearing.”, the Court noted.

The court was hearing a batch of petitions advocating reservation of posts for women in various bar associations in Delhi, including DHCBA. Some petitions demand up to 33 per cent quota for women in bar establishments in the national capital.

Court in September recommended DHCBA reserves the position of female vice president. Later Court directed that the association hold an AGM to consider reserving at least the position of Treasurer and possibly another office holder role for female members. However, on 7 October GBM, the association rejected the reservation offer.

During the hearing, Meenakshi Arora, Senior Advocate for the petitioners, said that DHCBA affidavit It turned out that the Supreme Court’s instructions were not followed in the case.

“Please see the response and decisions taken. It starts in a negative way… The whole point is that they don’t want to do it, they start in a negative way. This is a brazenly obvious mismatch“Arora said.

DHCBA’s lawyer, Senior Advocate Vijay Hansaria, countered Arora’s allegations. Hansaria argued that DHCBA complied with the Court order by collecting the GBM. He said the petitioners had received orders from the Delhi High Court. to delay Although the Supreme Court’s order was only for DHCBA to hold a general body meeting, bar elections in Delhi were held due to reservation issue.

“Your Lordships’ order says only the Delhi High Court Bar Association will conduct a GBM. Using this as an order, they go to the Delhi High Court and get an order to postpone the election, when the coordinate bench of this court comes an order saying that there is no question of postponing the elections on September 30.” said Hansaria.

Arora objected to Hansaria’s intervention, “This is my petition, do not usurp it. Anyway, you usurped the entire Executive Committee, don’t even usurp my right to address the court.!”

Elections for the Bar Council and other Delhi-based bar associations were initially fixed for October 19 but were postponed to December 13 due to ongoing litigation.

Judge Surya Kant stated: “An additional position reserved as a manager in both categories is to make room for one more woman, right? And they didn’t do that. So the male members of the bar are so afraid of the 22% female members that they don’t want to make you a member of the Board of Directors!”

Background

The petitioners argued that underrepresentation of women at the bar negatively affects women’s professional opportunities and access to justice, which could undermine the overall effectiveness of the justice system.

DHCBA opposed the proposal, arguing that it was a private association for which reservations were inappropriate. In its statement, DHCBA stated that it operates according to the principles of merit and participation without reservation and expressed concerns that adopting quotas for any group could disrupt the work of the association. DHCBA also noted that candidates had prepared well in advance for the 2024 elections and argued that making reservations now would create an unfair disadvantage to those already in the selection process.

Following an earlier Supreme Court order, the DHCBA held its October 7 meeting in which the association rejected the proposed reservations. The association’s statement also questioned the motives of the petitioners and claimed that their petitions were politically motivated and aimed at promoting certain candidates. The affidavit also claimed that bar voters’ votes were based on merit and not gender or other identities.

The Supreme Court has previously ordered The implementation of 33% reservations for women in Supreme Court Bar Council elections and petitions seeking similar reservations are currently being heard among bar associations in Delhi, including the Delhi Bar Association.

Click Here to Read/Download the Order