'In Judicial Service, Majority Are Women Without Reservation; So Do Women Lawyers Need Preference In Chamber Allotment?' Asks Supreme Court

The Supreme Court today issued notice on a plea seeking framing of a uniform and gender-sensitive policy for allotment of professional chambers/cabins to women advocates in different Courts and bar associations across the country.

The petition seeks directions for reservation or prioritization of chambers/cabins for women lawyers in future allotments. It also seeks construction and priority allotment of chambers/cabins to women advocates who have over 25 years practice at Supreme Court and are currently on Supreme Court Bar Association's waiting list.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi passed the order.

During the hearing, Justice Kant remarked in passing that concept of chambers should be eliminated. Instead, there can be working stations, common sitting spaces and rooms for client meetings. The judge further said that the new Supreme Court building has been constructed keeping in mind all needs of lawyers.

Hearing the senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, the bench initially seemed unconvinced to direct 'reservation' for women lawyers. It was noted that women have fared exceedingly well on their own merit in every field, especially the judiciary.

"In our judicial service, almost 60% of officers are women. They are there not because of any reservation...there is no preference for them. It is solely on merit. That's why I find it a little bit paradoxical why you ask for any privilege? If we think of giving a preferential allocation, for example in the matter of chambers, then we should also think of specially-abled persons...", said Justice Kant.

In response, the senior counsel for petitioners pointed out that chamber/cabin allotment was an infrastructural benefit which did not have anything to do with merit.

Subsequently, the bench suggested that focus can also be on provision of Court-annexed creche facilities, etc. for women lawyers, as a lot of young women professionals have to quit because of family pressures. Justice Kant notably remarked that like women, the reliefs sought may also have to be considered for lawyers with special needs.

Ultimately, the bench issued notice on the petition to Union, Supreme Court's Secretary General, SCBA and Bar Council of India.

The petitioners, who are practicing women advocates, claim that despite practice of 15-25 years, they have not been allotted any chamber or professional space and are on the SCBA's waiting list.

They assert that the present chamber allotment scheme is devoid of any affirmative action, quota or reservation for women advocates and recent allotments (68 cubicles in July-October 2024 in Supreme Court's D Block) were made without prioritizing women advocates despite the Supreme Court's directions for priority allotment to women lawyers.

"This systemic exclusion operates through facially neutral yet outcome-inequitable procedures, which fail to account for the structural disadvantages faced by women lawyers - particularly first-generation professionals from non-metropolitan and socially marginalized backgrounds", the plea says.

According to the petitioners, lack of basic infrastructure in the form of chambers/cabin spaces impacts the fundamental rights of women advocates under Articles 14, 15, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution.

The petition has been filed through AoR Divyesh Pratap Singh.

Case Title: BHAKTI PASRIJA AND ORS. Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS., W.P.(C) No. 921/2025