Supreme Court Seeks Response From Centre And States On Reservation For Women Advocates In Government Panels
A Bench comprising Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi on Wednesday issued notice to the Union Government and all States in a public interest litigation seeking implementation of a minimum 30 per cent reservation for women advocates in government legal panels, law officer appointments and empanelments by Central and State authorities as well as Public Sector Undertakings.
The petition has been filed by Ladli Foundation Trust, which contends that women advocates continue to remain severely underrepresented in positions of professional authority despite increasing participation of women in legal education and the legal profession.
The matter was taken up by the Bench after hearing submissions advanced by Senior Advocate Vikas Singh appearing for the petitioner. During the course of hearing, Singh referred to a recent survey conducted by the Supreme Court Bar Association regarding challenges faced by women advocates in the profession. He submitted that mere inclusion of women lawyers in government panels was insufficient unless an effective mechanism was evolved to ensure actual allocation of cases to them.
Emphasising the structural barriers faced by women practitioners, Singh argued that although women are sometimes empanelled or appointed to government legal positions, they are often denied meaningful work opportunities and briefing assignments. He submitted that reservation in panels without equitable distribution of cases would defeat the very object of representation.
The plea seeks directions for implementation of at least 30 per cent reservation for women advocates in all High Court panels, government law officer positions and empanelments made by the Union Government, State Governments and PSUs. According to the petitioner, such affirmative measures are necessary to secure effective enforcement of fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 15(3), 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution.
The petition highlights that empirical data demonstrates persistent gender disparity within the legal profession. It states that out of approximately 15.4 lakh advocates enrolled across India, only around 2.84 lakh are women, constituting nearly 15.31 per cent of the total legal workforce.
The petitioner further argued that the imbalance is visible even at the level of the higher judiciary. Referring to appointments to the Supreme Court, the plea notes that only eleven women judges have been elevated to the apex court since the appointment of Justice Fathima Beevi in 1989.
The petition also points out that since independence, no woman lawyer has been appointed as the Attorney General for India or Solicitor General for India. It was further submitted before the Court that none of the Additional Solicitors General assigned to High Courts are women.
During the hearing, Senior Advocate Dr Monika Gusain informed the Bench that in Haryana, no woman lawyer has been appointed to the post of Senior Additional Advocate General since the creation of the post. Responding to the submission, the Chief Justice observed that several women lawyers have nevertheless been appointed as Additional Advocate Generals.
However, Gusain submitted that while women lawyers may formally hold such positions and receive stipends, they are frequently not assigned cases for extended periods. Highlighting the practical dimensions of representation, she contended that symbolic appointments without work allocation fail to ensure substantive equality.
At this stage, the Chief Justice orally remarked:
“Why do you talk of Sr AAG when Advocate General has not been appointed? Sr AAG is just one step above AAG…”
In response, Gusain remarked:
“It is also one step below the Advocate General.”
The Chief Justice thereafter observed that he did not approve of the nomenclature “Senior Additional Advocate General.”
When the Bench inquired whether any women had served as Advocate Generals in the country, Senior Advocate Vikas Singh and Dr Gusain informed the Court that there had been only one or two such appointments so far. They further submitted that precise data regarding women appointments to such constitutional and statutory posts was not readily available and that the States would be better placed to furnish comprehensive details.
During the proceedings, Dr Gusain also sought impleadment of the Bar Council of India and the Supreme Court Bar Association as parties to the matter. Opposing the request insofar as the BCI was concerned, Vikas Singh submitted that empanelment and appointment of law officers are functions performed by State Governments and authorities, and therefore the Bar Council of India had no direct role in the controversy. He added that the SCBA, if so advised, could independently seek intervention in the proceedings.
Taking note of the issues raised, the Bench directed the parties to place comprehensive material and relevant data on record and proceeded to issue notice to the Union Government and all States.
Case Details
Case Title: Ladli Foundation Trust v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number: W.P.(C) No. 471/2026
Bench: Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi
Appearances: Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, AoR Mudit Gupta and Advocate Varun Singh for the petitioner.