The Punjab & Haryana High Court has nominated retired Justice Jaishree Thakur and Senior Advocate Gursharan Kaur Mann as two women members of the Bar Council of Punjab & Haryana. The nominations have been made pursuant to directions issued by the Supreme Court concerning the representation of women in State Bar Councils. The High Court's Registrar General issued a memorandum formally notifying the co-option and nomination of the two members. The development follows the Supreme Court's directions in Yogamaya M.G. v. Union of India and Others, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 581 of 2024, in which the Supreme Court had directed the inclusion of two women members in each State Bar Council through a nomination process involving the respective High Court Chief Justices.
The nomination of Justice Jaishree Thakur and Senior Advocate Gursharan Kaur Mann is therefore part of a broader institutional exercise directed by the Supreme Court. Rather than being an ordinary election to the Bar Council, the two positions have been filled through the co-option/nomination mechanism specifically contemplated by the Supreme Court. The objective of the mechanism, as reflected in the Supreme Court's directions, is to ensure the presence of women members in State Bar Councils, particularly where such representation requires an additional institutional mechanism. The Punjab & Haryana High Court has now completed that process for its State Bar Council.
The Supreme Court's directions in Yogamaya M.G. v. Union of India form the legal foundation for the nominations. In that case, the Supreme Court directed that two women members were to be co-opted to State Bar Councils. Importantly, the Court provided guidance regarding the pool from which these members were to be selected. The nominations were to be made by the Chief Justices of the respective High Courts from among former women High Court judges or senior women members of the Bar who had a fair standing at the Bar. This framework placed the selection responsibility with the High Court Chief Justices while also prescribing broad eligibility considerations for the nominated members.
The Supreme Court subsequently issued another direction requiring the Chief Justices of the High Courts to complete the process of co-opting two women members to the State Bar Councils within two weeks. This subsequent direction was significant because it established a specific time frame for implementing the earlier directions. The latest memorandum issued by the Punjab & Haryana High Court indicates that the nomination process has now been completed in accordance with those Supreme Court directions.
The memorandum was issued by the Registrar General of the Punjab & Haryana High Court and was addressed to the Chairman of the Bar Council of Punjab & Haryana. It records that the nominations were made pursuant to the Supreme Court's directions and following an order passed by Chief Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra. The memorandum further records that the Chief Justice took the decision in consultation with the elected members of the Bar Council. Thus, the process involved both the authority of the High Court Chief Justice and consultation with the elected representatives of the State Bar Council.
The first nominee is Justice Jaishree Thakur, a former Judge of the Punjab & Haryana High Court. Her nomination falls within one of the categories expressly contemplated by the Supreme Court, namely a former woman judge of a High Court. Her judicial experience and prior association with the Punjab & Haryana High Court form part of the institutional background relevant to her nomination. The memorandum formally identifies her as “Hon'ble Ms. Justice Jaishree Thakur, Former Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.”
The second nominee is Gursharan Kaur Mann, a Senior Advocate. Her nomination falls within the other category identified in the Supreme Court's directions—senior women members of the Bar having a fair standing in the legal profession. The memorandum identifies her as “Mrs. Gursharan Kaur Mann, Senior Advocate.” Her selection therefore provides representation through the senior practising Bar, complementing the nomination of a former High Court judge.
The composition of the two nominations is significant because it reflects the two broad categories contemplated by the Supreme Court's framework. One nominee brings experience from the judicial side, while the other comes from the practising Bar. The Supreme Court's direction did not require that both nominees belong to the same professional category. Instead, it permitted selection from former women High Court judges or senior women members of the Bar with an appropriate standing. The Punjab & Haryana High Court has selected one nominee from each category.
The development must also be understood in the context of the role played by State Bar Councils within the legal profession. Bar Councils are statutory bodies responsible for various functions concerning advocates and the legal profession, including matters connected with enrolment, professional conduct and disciplinary jurisdiction under the Advocates Act, 1961. Their composition and functioning consequently have an institutional impact on the administration and regulation of the legal profession. The presence of women members through the mechanism directed by the Supreme Court adds another dimension to the representation within these professional regulatory bodies.
The Supreme Court's intervention in Yogamaya M.G. is particularly relevant because the nominations do not depend upon an ordinary election campaign within the Bar Council. The Court established a specific route for ensuring the participation of two women members through co-option. By directing High Court Chief Justices to nominate eligible women, the Supreme Court created a mechanism separate from the existing elected composition. The latest Punjab & Haryana High Court memorandum represents implementation of that judicially prescribed mechanism.
The process also demonstrates the interaction between the Supreme Court's constitutional authority and the functioning of State-level legal institutions. The State Bar Council is a professional regulatory institution, but the manner in which its membership is supplemented pursuant to the Supreme Court's directions involves the High Court's administrative leadership. The Punjab & Haryana High Court Chief Justice has accordingly exercised the authority contemplated by the Supreme Court order to complete the nomination process.
Another important aspect of the development is the consultation process recorded in the memorandum. According to the LiveLaw report, the nomination followed an order of Chief Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra made in consultation with the elected members of the Bar Council. This indicates that the process was not presented as an isolated decision without engagement with the existing Bar Council structure. Instead, consultation with the elected members was part of the process leading to the nomination of Justice Jaishree Thakur and Senior Advocate Gursharan Kaur Mann.
The Supreme Court's two-week deadline also underscores the importance attached to timely implementation of its directions. The later order requiring completion within two weeks was specifically referred to in the High Court memorandum. The Punjab & Haryana High Court's action consequently represents compliance with the timeline prescribed by the Supreme Court for the co-option of the two women members.
The nomination of a former High Court judge and a senior advocate also brings different forms of professional experience into the Bar Council. A former judge has experience from the judicial side of the justice-delivery system, while a senior advocate has experience from the practising side of litigation and professional representation. Their participation may therefore contribute different perspectives to deliberations of the State Bar Council. However, the immediate legal significance of the development is that the two nominees satisfy the categories contemplated by the Supreme Court's directions and have now been formally notified as members.
It is also important to distinguish nomination from election. Justice Jaishree Thakur and Gursharan Kaur Mann have not been described in the memorandum as elected members. Their positions arise from the special co-option/nomination mechanism directed by the Supreme Court. The elected members continue to constitute the elected component of the Bar Council, while the two nominated women members are being added pursuant to the judicial directions. This distinction is relevant for understanding the institutional basis of their membership.
The development may have broader significance for representation of women within professional legal bodies. The Supreme Court's direction specifically required two women members to be co-opted into State Bar Councils, creating an additional avenue for women's participation in bodies that regulate the legal profession. The Punjab & Haryana High Court's implementation demonstrates how that direction operates at the State level: the High Court Chief Justice identifies eligible women from the categories specified by the Supreme Court and formally nominates them to the relevant Bar Council.
At the same time, the LiveLaw report does not indicate that the High Court made any separate finding concerning the qualifications or professional standing of the two nominees beyond their identification as a former High Court judge and Senior Advocate. The formal memorandum simply records their nomination in compliance with the Supreme Court's directions. Therefore, the significance of the appointment should be understood principally in terms of the institutional process and the Supreme Court's framework rather than as a judicial assessment of either nominee's professional merits.
The case also illustrates how judicial directions can result in administrative changes within statutory professional institutions. The Supreme Court first established the requirement of two women members, subsequently prescribed a time frame for implementation, and the High Court then undertook the necessary nomination process. The Registrar General's memorandum provides the formal administrative record of the final step. This sequence demonstrates the movement from judicial direction to institutional implementation.
The Punjab & Haryana High Court's action therefore completes an important stage in implementing the Supreme Court's directions concerning women's representation in State Bar Councils. Justice Jaishree Thakur and Senior Advocate Gursharan Kaur Mann have been formally co-opted/nominated as members of the Bar Council of Punjab & Haryana. One is a former judge of the same High Court, while the other is a Senior Advocate. Their nominations were made by Chief Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra after consultation with the elected members of the Bar Council and were formally notified by the Registrar General.
In conclusion, the nomination of Justice Jaishree Thakur and Senior Advocate Gursharan Kaur Mann represents the Punjab & Haryana High Court's implementation of the Supreme Court's directions in Yogamaya M.G. v. Union of India. The Supreme Court had directed that two women members be co-opted to State Bar Councils and subsequently required High Court Chief Justices to complete the process within two weeks. The Punjab & Haryana High Court has now complied with that direction by selecting a former woman High Court judge and a senior woman member of the Bar. The formal memorandum issued by the Registrar General records their induction into the Bar Council of Punjab & Haryana and marks the completion of the prescribed nomination process.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.