<p>On <strong>13 April 2026</strong>, the <span class="key-term" data-definition="India's apex judicial body responsible for interpreting the Constitution and adjudicating disputes involving the Union and states (GS2: Polity)">Supreme Court</span> directed the high‑powered supervisory panel headed by <span class="key-term" data-definition="Retired judge Sudhanshu Dhulia, appointed to oversee the implementation of Bar Council election norms (GS2: Polity)">Justice (retired) Sudhanshu Dhulia</span> to decide the exact manner of applying a <span class="key-term" data-definition="Mechanism allowing a body to appoint additional members to meet reservation requirements when insufficient candidates are elected (GS2: Polity)">co‑option</span> of women candidates amounting to 10% of the seats reserved under the <span class="key-term" data-definition="Mandated quota ensuring that at least 30% of seats in State Bar Council elections are occupied by women, reflecting affirmative action policies (GS2: Polity)">30% women reservation</span> rule.</p>
<h3>मुख्य विकास</h3>
<ul>
<li>The bench comprising <strong>Chief Justice of India Surya Kant</strong> and <strong>Justice Joymalya Bagchi</strong> heard a writ petition highlighting possible misuse of the co‑option provision.</li>
<li>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 <span class="key-term" data-definition="Statutory body that regulates the legal profession, sets standards for legal education, and conducts elections of State Bar Councils (GS2: Polity)">Bar Council of India (BCI)</span>, and (iii) entrusting the process to the State Election Committee.</li>
<li>The Court observed that each option has merits and demerits and therefore tasked the <span class="key-term" data-definition="Retired judge Sudhanshu Dhulia, appointed to oversee the implementation of Bar Council election norms (GS2: Polity)">Justice Dhulia committee</span> to consult all stakeholders before finalising the method.</li>
<li>The Court clarified that co‑option is a temporary measure for the current election year, not a permanent substitute for genuine electoral competition.</li>
<li>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.</li>
</ul>
<h3>महत्वपूर्ण तथ्य</h3>
<ul>
<li>The <span class="key-term" data-definition="1978 legislation governing the legal profession, including provisions for election of Bar Council members and reservation (GS2: Polity)">Advocates Act</span> mandates election of Bar Council members through <span class="key-term" data-definition="Proportional representation voting system where voters rank candidates and surplus votes are transferred, used for Bar Council elections (GS2: Polity)">single transferable vote (STV)</span>.</li>
</ul>