The Supreme Court asked the stakeholders to resolve their differences through discussions and submit a common proposal on the implementation of 30% reservation for women in district bar associations. The court urged the stakeholders to arrive at a common proposal on the manner in which the reservation should operate, including questions concerning repeated terms and the composition of executive committees.

Chief Justice of India Surya Kant observed that the positions of the parties were not substantially different and suggested that they hold informal meetings to arrive at a consensus.

Senior Advocate Geeta Luthra submitted that women had not yet occupied the post of president in the concerned bar associations. Opposing the suggestion that the post should be reserved for women and that a selected woman should only participate for a single term, Senior Adv N Hariharan argued that women should be allowed to participate in the democratic process rather than being excluded from contesting reserved posts in subsequent terms. He also questioned the assumption that a woman who had contested once would necessarily win again, submitting:“But how are you so certain that she is going to win? And you can’t change the rule.”

The Court was also apprised of difficulties in implementing the proposed 30% reservation, because district bar associations have different numbers of executive members. Counsel submitted that some associations have 15 members while others have 13, and that new posts were being created from time to time.

The Bench subsequently suggested that representatives of the different sides hold informal meetings and attempt to resolve the issues collectively. It indicated that the Bar Association could host such discussions and asked the stakeholders to arrive at a common proposal.

The Bench stressed that the lawyers should present a unified position before the Court, rather than advancing the same issue through multiple voices.