Supreme Court asks Justice Dhulia Committee to frame 10% women co‑option rule for State Bar Council elections

On 13 April 2026 , the Supreme Court directed the high‑powered supervisory panel headed by Justice (retired) Sudhanshu Dhulia to decide the exact manner of applying a co‑option of women candidates amounting to 10% of the seats reserved under the 30% women reservation rule. Key Developments The bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi heard a writ petition highlighting possible misuse of the co‑option provision. Three options were tabled by the petitioner: (i) co‑option among the highest‑vote‑receiving women candidates who lost, (ii) delegation of the decision to State Bar Councils or the Bar Council of India (BCI) , and (iii) entrusting the process to the State Election Committee. The Court observed that each option has merits and demerits and therefore tasked the Justice Dhulia committee to consult all stakeholders before finalising the method. The Court clarified that co‑option is a temporary measure for the current election year, not a permanent substitute for genuine electoral competition. Both the petitioner's counsel and an intervenor (a male candidate with the highest votes in Telangana) warned that a blanket co‑option rule could undermine the spirit of the reservation policy. Important Facts The Advocates Act mandates election of Bar Council members through single transferable vote (STV) . In states like Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, more than five women contested open seats and secured more votes than many male counterparts, winning as open‑category candidates. The Court noted that the existing order lacks clarity on the procedural steps for the 10% co‑option, prompting the present intervention. Senior Advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu argued that co‑option should be invoked only when there are insufficient women candidates, not when women already win open seats. UPSC Relevance The case illustrates the interplay between judicial oversight, statutory mandates, and affirmative‑action policies—core topics in GS Paper II (Polity) . Understanding the mechanisms of reservation, co‑option, and the role of bodies like the Bar Council of India (BCI) helps aspirants analyse how constitutional principles are operationalised in professional bodies. The discussion on single transferable vote (STV) also reinforces knowledge of electoral systems beyond parliamentary elections. Way Forward The Justice Dhulia committee is expected to issue detailed guidelines on: (i) the eligibility criteria for women to be co‑opted, (ii) the authority responsible for finalising the names (whether the State Bar Council, the BCI, or a dedicated election committee), and (iii) safeguards to prevent arbitrary selection. Until the guidelines are released, State Bar Councils must adhere to the Court’s interim direction that co‑option is limited to cases of genuine shortage of elected women members.