The Supreme Court heard submissions in a matter concerning representation of persons with disabilities in Bar Councils, including issues relating to nomination, election fees, and structural inclusion within the Bar Council framework.
During the hearing, Sr Adv Indira Jaising appearing for advocates with disabilities highlighted the financial and structural barriers faced by them in participating effectively in Bar Council elections. It was submitted that while advocates with disabilities have recently been permitted to work as notaries pursuant to a judgment of the Court, their earnings remain modest, making it impossible for them to afford the existing nomination fee of ₹1.25 lakh prescribed for contesting Bar Council elections.
The Court was informed that earlier, the nomination amount was only a few hundred rupees and has since been increased substantially, now standing at around ₹15,000–₹25,000 in some States. Sr Adv Indira Jaising urged the Bench to consider waiving or substantially reducing the nomination fee for advocates with disabilities, at least for an interim period of one year, to allow them time to establish financial stability following their recent inclusion as notaries.
It was clarified during the hearing that the request was limited only to advocates with disabilities, and no concession was sought for other categories of candidates. The Bench was also assured that any proposal for nomination or co-option of advocates with disabilities would be independent of their right to contest elections on merit, upon payment of the prescribed fee applicable to all candidates.
The submissions further emphasised the need for adequate representation of persons with disabilities in Bar Councils, suggesting that each Bar Council could have at least one nominated member from the category of persons with disabilities, drawing parity with statutory provisions providing 4% reservation in public employment. It was argued that such representation would not exceed one additional seat per Bar Council and would ensure meaningful participation rather than token inclusion.
The Bench indicated that while immediate structural changes may require legislative or statutory amendments, the Bar Council of India could consider approaching the Central Government with appropriate proposals. The Court observed that the issue concerns inclusion and representation of a class already recognised as disadvantaged and merits serious consideration.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the Court indicated that it would allow stakeholders, including the Bar Council of India and State Bar Councils, to place concrete proposals on record, while clarifying that the ongoing election process need not be stalled at this stage. The matter was disposed of with liberty to revisit the issue after receiving responses and proposals aimed at ensuring effective and dignified representation of advocates with disabilities in the Bar Council system.