Synopsis

The appellant (an advocate) challenged the election notification of the Bar Council of Delhi (BCD) dated 24.12.2025, arguing that out of 25 elected members, 12 posts were reserved for advocates with over 10 years of practice and 7 posts for women, leaving 6 unreserved posts. He claimed that senior advocates and those eligible for reserved categories were also contesting for the unreserved posts, thereby squeezing out young advocates (with less than 10 years of practice). He sought a direction that the remaining 6 posts be reserved exclusively for young advocates. The Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on grounds of delay, laches, and absence of any vested right. The Division Bench dismissed the appeal, holding that: (i) the Supreme Court in M. Varadhan v. Union of India is directly supervising Bar Council elections through a High‑Powered Election Committee and has directed that no Civil Court or High Court shall entertain any petition against such decisions; therefore the writ petition was not maintainable; (ii) Section 3(2)(b) of the Advocates Act mandates only 50% reservation for advocates with over 10 years of practice; the remaining 50% cannot be claimed as reserved for junior advocates; and (iii) complete reservation for all posts is impermissible.

Court: High Court of Delhi (Division Bench)
Coram: Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, CJ & Tejas Karia, J.
Date: March 27, 2026
Citation: Not explicitly provided (likely 2026:DHC:xxxx)
Core Law: Advocates Act, 1961 – Section 3(2)(b); Constitution of India – Articles 14, 19(1)(g).

2. Legal Framework

• Advocates Act, 1961: Section 3(2)(b) – composition of State Bar Councils; provides that as nearly as possible one‑half of the elected members shall be advocates who have for at least ten years been on a State roll.

... Upgrade to a Premium Plan to view the full judgment.