Introduction
In a significant step towards strengthening inclusivity within the legal profession, the Supreme Court of India on December 16, 2025, expressed strong support for providing reservation to advocates with disabilities in State Bar Council elections. Emphasising that representation of persons with disabilities would enhance the humane character of legal institutions, the Court directed the Bar Council of India (BCI) to hold consultations and place a concrete proposal before it.
The observations were made by a Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, while hearing a plea seeking 4 per cent reservation for advocates with disabilities in elections to the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu.
Background of the Petition
The petition sought reservation for persons with disabilities (PwDs) in the electoral process of State Bar Councils, contending that despite statutory protections under disability rights law, advocates with disabilities remain systematically underrepresented in professional bodies governing the legal profession.
Senior Advocate Indira Jaising, appearing for the petitioners, relied on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, to argue that reservation is a recognised mechanism for ensuring meaningful participation of PwDs in institutional decision-making. She cautioned the Court that delaying consideration of the issue beyond the ongoing Bar Council election schedules would effectively render the plea infructuous for another five years.
Supreme Court’s Emphasis on Inclusivity and Humane Governance
Throughout the hearing, CJI Surya Kant repeatedly stressed that inclusivity must guide institutional decision-making. The Chief Justice observed that even minimal representation of advocates with disabilities would significantly strengthen the Bar and reflect its commitment to equality.
“If we have even one representative, that will strengthen the institution, that will enhance the humane face of the institution and will also fortify your commitment to inclusivity,” the CJI remarked.
The Court underscored that representation is not merely symbolic but essential to ensure that institutional policies are sensitive to the lived realities of persons with disabilities.
Opposition from Bar Council of India
Manan Kumar Mishra, Chairperson of the Bar Council of India and Senior Advocate, opposed the plea. He argued that:
- There is no reservation for persons with disabilities in Parliament or State Legislatures.
- Introducing reservation in Bar Councils could open the door to multiple category-based claims.
- The population of advocates with disabilities is extremely small, and reserving even one seat in councils with limited strength would be impractical.
“Once we start doing this, there will be no end to it. And their population is not even 0.1%. Now out of 25 or 15 or 20 seats, if we start allotting one seat, there will be no end to it,” Mishra submitted.
Court’s Response to BCI’s Concerns
Rejecting the argument that numerical strength alone should determine representation, the CJI observed that inclusivity cannot be measured solely by population percentages. He clarified that even a single representative could meaningfully advance institutional empathy and fairness.
The Court also suggested creative and flexible solutions, including:
- Increasing the number of seats in State Bar Councils by one or two
- Exploring co-option of members with disabilities instead of subjecting them to competitive electoral processes
“Think of a small meeting, online or so… increase 1–2 seats, file an appropriate proposal before us. Then you can think of co-opting the member instead of forcing them to go through a proper election process,” the CJI suggested.
Remarks on Intersectional Claims
Senior Advocate S. Prabhakaran, Vice Chairperson of the BCI, appearing for the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu, raised concerns that recognition of PwD reservation could lead to claims from other marginalised groups, including transgender advocates.
The CJI responded firmly, noting that Tamil Nadu has historically been a leader in progressive legal thought and social reform, and should therefore be at the forefront of inclusive professional practices.
Recognition of Competence of Advocates with Disabilities
Addressing implicit doubts about capability, the Chief Justice emphasised that advocates with disabilities are equally competent professionals. He cited the example of Senior Advocate S.K. Rungta of the Delhi High Court, who is visually impaired, to demonstrate that disability does not diminish professional excellence.
This observation aligns with constitutional principles of substantive equality and the evolving jurisprudence that disability is not a limitation but a dimension of diversity.
Union Government’s Stand
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Union of India, informed the Court that persons with disabilities are already being empanelled as government counsels.
Appreciating the initiative, the CJI remarked:
“Very good initiative. We have to strengthen and enhance the initiative. We have to build an architecture of an inclusive society.”
The Court indicated that inclusion must extend beyond tokenism and be embedded structurally within professional institutions.
Issue of High Nomination Fees
Senior Advocate Indira Jaising also highlighted the issue of exorbitant nomination fees, stating that the fee of ₹1.25 lakh posed a significant barrier for advocates with disabilities.
While the report notes that the Supreme Court had previously dismissed challenges to nomination fees, the concern adds another dimension to the debate—economic accessibility within professional governance.
Legal Significance of the Case
1. Strengthening Disability Rights Jurisprudence
The Court’s observations reinforce the spirit of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, which mandates participation, accessibility, and equality in all spheres of public life.
2. Democratic Reform Within the Legal Profession
The case highlights the need to democratise Bar Council structures, ensuring they reflect the diversity of the profession they regulate.
3. Institutional Accountability of Bar Councils
By directing the BCI to consult and submit a proposal, the Supreme Court placed the responsibility squarely on the regulatory body to evolve inclusive mechanisms.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s strong endorsement of reservation for advocates with disabilities marks a progressive moment in the governance of the legal profession. By foregrounding inclusivity, humane values, and substantive equality, the Court reaffirmed that professional excellence and diversity are not competing ideals but complementary ones.
As the Bar Council of India prepares its proposal, the outcome of this case could set a transformative precedent, ensuring that advocates with disabilities have a meaningful voice in shaping the institutions that govern them.
Also Read
