cji-orders-reservation-of-posts-for-women-lawyers-in-sc-body

 

In a welcome move for the women advocates, the Supreme Court on Monday directed the reservation of certain posts for women lawyers in the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association's (SCAORA) governing body.

 

A Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi passed the order after stakeholders before the Court agreed to such measures to address the underrepresentation of women among SCAORA office bearers.

 

The Court directed that in the ensuing elections, the posts of Joint Treasurer and Secretary, along with two Executive Committee positions, shall be reserved for women candidates.The order was passed in exercise of the top court inherent powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.

 

“The issue pertains to ensuring adequate representation of women among the office bearers and executive committee of SCAORA. Both sides have graciously agreed that in the ensuing elections of SCAORA ... the post of joint treasurer, secretary and two executive members be reserved for women. We invoke Article 142 and order accordingly," the Court said.

 

Senior Advocate Gaurav Aggarwal appeared for a petitioner who urged the Court to consider the lack of women's representation in the SCAORA.Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy, representing SCAORA, indicated that the association is in agreement with the proposal for women's reservation.“We welcome any change that is beneficial," she said.

 

Taking note of the consensus, the Court invoked its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India (which allows the Supreme Court to pass any order necessary to do complete justice in a case) and directed that the reservation be implemented in the upcoming elections.The directions comes in the backdrop of the Court’s recent push to improve women’s representation in legal institutions.

 

Late last year, the Court had directed that women lawyers must occupy at least 30 per cent of seats in all State Bar Councils. The Court also clarified that the requirement was “non-negotiable” and permitted co-option to address any shortfall where elections were already underway.