In a progressive move, India’s Supreme Court has guaranteed a significant representation for women in the executive committee of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA). The court has reserved one-third of the seats in the SCBA’s executive committee specifically for women.
The SCBA, a remarkable bar association compendium of functioning advocates who operate within the Supreme Court of India, now must instate certain reservations and establish a set of guidelines for the elections of its Executive Committee. According to the court’s new ruling, one-third of seats across various committee positions, including the role of Treasurer, must be held by women members. However, it is important to note that eligible women members retain the freedom to vie for all positions.
The following criteria were clarified by the court regarding reservations:
- A minimum of one-third seats on the Executive Committee (i.e., three out of nine).
- A minimum of one-third of Senior Executive Members (i.e., two out of six).
- At least one post of the Office Bearer shall be reserved for women candidates exclusively, operating on a rotational basis.
- In the forthcoming election for 2024-2025, the position of Treasurer of the Executive Committee has been preemptively reserved for a woman.
Alongside these changes, the Supreme Court outlined instructions for the forthcoming SCBA Executive Committee elections, with the present term concluding on May 18, 2024. The court has set specific directives to ensure a smooth course, with the election scheduled for May 16, 2024. All eligible members from March 1, 2023, to February 29, 2024, will be incorporated into the 2023 voter list. The Supreme Court Registry will supply all necessary data by May 3, 2024. The counting of votes will commence on May 18, 2024, and results will be announced the next day, securing an orderly transition of leadership.
Known for its contribution in safeguarding constitutional values, democracy, rule of law, and the independence of the judiciary, the SCBA has long been a formidable force in India. In 1951, this collective of legal luminaries, including M. C. Setalvad, C. K. Daphtary, and K. M. Munshi, exhibited apprehension about the first amendment to the Constitution and the suggested merge of Law Minister and Attorney General offices. Their worries extended to the plight of poor litigants as well as the destitute and feeble members of the Bar. In the decisive period from 1970 to 1980, the Keshavananda Bharati case transpired, ranking limits on the constitutional authority of the Parliament to amend the Constitution. The resolute opposition to these attempts largely came from organizations like the SCBA and widespread public opinion.