The Supreme Court on Tuesday heard an interlocutory application (IA) filed in Yogmaya v. Union of India, W.P. (C) No. 581, concerning the implementation of the Court’s direction providing for 30% representation for women in State Bar Councils and its implications for the subsequent composition of the Bar Council of India (BCI).
Senior Advocate Sobha Gupta, mentioning the matter, told the Bench that the Court had earlier directed 30% representation for women in State Bar Councils. She submitted that, in another writ petition, the Court had directed all State Bar Councils to complete the exercise of issuing notifications regarding their composition within two weeks, following which the composition of the BCI would have to take place in accordance with the Court’s orders.
Ms Gupta said this IA sought to address the issue of implementing 30% representation in the BCI by way of rotation. She urged the Court to list the IA along with another matter, listed as Item 28, concerning the composition of the BCI and scheduled for hearing the following day. She also submitted that the IA contained a proposal to implement the representation through rotation over a two-year period.
“
“This IA is now maybe the last nail in the whole exercise about 30% reservation by way of rotation in BCI. The Registry is not listening despite my Lord’s mail sent because they said there’s some other administrative side that no more IA is possibly to be listed in this writ petition, disposed of. My request is, My Lord, let this IA come up with another matter, that is Item 28, which is coming up tomorrow before My Lords.”
Responding to that, Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, while referring to a letter he had received concerning the issue, remarked: “We think we should withdraw this 30% representation.” The CJI said the letter indicated that some women lawyers were raising concerns about the autonomy of the BCI and protesting what they perceived as the Supreme Court taking away the BCI’s powers.
“
“There was one letter which I received, that some women lawyers are talking of autonomy of BCI. Powers of BCI being taken away by this Court, Supreme Court, so they will put a protest.”
Ms Gupta submitted that the flyer was contemptuous because it described the Court’s orders as “unconstitutional” and “undemocratic”. Justice Bagchi disagreed with the submission, arguing that describing a judicial order as unconstitutional could amount to an opinion protected by freedom of expression.
“
“They can always say orders are unconstitutional. It’s a freedom of expression, it’s an opinion. When a Lord Judge was described as “old fool”, he said the first expression ‘old’ is a factually correct expression of the judges and ‘fool’ is a matter of opinion.”
Advocate Nedumpara then made a broader submission on contempt jurisdiction. He said “Contempt belongs to cathartic jurisdiction, it has to be abolished. I advocate every lawyer to violate it. Invite contempt, abolish it.”
Ms Gupta ultimately reiterated that her immediate request was for the IA to be listed along with the matter concerning the composition of the BCI scheduled for the following day. The Court allowed the request.