In a brief but significant hearing on Monday, the Supreme Court refused to direct any immediate reservation for advocates with disabilities in Bar Council bodies. The Court, however, nudged the Bar Council of India (BCI) to seriously examine the demand in light of constitutional equality and existing disability rights laws.
Background
The petition was filed by Amit Kumar Yadav, a practicing advocate known for taking up disability rights causes. He had approached the Court under public interest litigation, seeking mandatory reservation for persons with disabilities in the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh and local Bar Associations.
Read Also:- Supreme Court Notes Manipur Audio Clips Were Tampered; Says No Clear Conclusion on Voice
The Uttar Pradesh Bar Council elections have already been notified, and nominations are due soon, making the plea time-sensitive.
Court’s Observations
The bench, comprising Justice Surya Kant, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, heard the submissions quickly but cautiously. The judges signaled that election-related directives at this stage would be difficult to enforce.
The bench observed, “The reservation for persons with disability essentially being a policy matter, it is not possible to issue a positive mandamus at this stage.”
The Court clarified that while the concern raised was legitimate, the judiciary cannot immediately re-design election structures or introduce new quotas unless the legislature or regulatory bodies have already provided for it.
Read Also:- Supreme Court Pauses Karnataka HC Rule Requiring Multiplexes to Keep Auditable Ticket Records Amid
The judges also acknowledged the petitioner’s repeated advocacy for disabled lawyers and noted that there is a broader policy vacuum on representation in professional bodies.
Decision
The Court disposed of the petition without granting the requested reservation. However, it directed the Bar Council of India to consider the plea “in light of the relevant legislative policies and statutes emanating from the constitutional principles of equality.”
The order also kept the door open:
The Court noted that the petitioner may approach the “appropriate forum at a later stage” if necessary.
Read Also:- Supreme Court Reviews State Compliance on Stray Dog Menace; Warns Chief Secretaries of Recall if
Pending applications were closed as well. The matter ended there, with the decision shifting responsibility back to policymakers rather than the Court itself.
Case: Amit Kumar Yadav vs. Bar Council of India & Anr.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justice Surya Kant, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, Justice Joymalya Bagchi
Nature of Petition: Public Interest Litigation (PIL)
Petitioner: Advocate Amit Kumar Yadav, known for advocating disability rights
Date of Order: 03 November 2025
