This is an interlocutory directions order dated 2 September 2026, uploaded to the Court's website on 7 November 2026. Its time periods run from the date of the order, not from the upload date. It does not finally decide the writ petitions, and it does not record whether the directed steps were subsequently completed. A later order of 2 November 2026 disposed of a contempt petition in the connected proceedings with liberty to challenge a Bar Council of India circular.
- Case
- M. Varadhan v. Union of India
- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Decision
- Bench
- Surya Kant; Joymalya Bagchi; V. Mohana
- Case numbers
- W.P.(C) 1049/2026; W.P.(C) 1092/2026
- Outcome
- Order dated 2 September 2026 in W.P.(C) 1049/2026 and W.P.(C) 1092/2026 laying down the sequence for completing the constitution of the State Bar Councils and taking forward the reconstitution of the Bar Council of India; the matters were listed for 23 September 2026 to await the first compliance reports.
The decision
The Supreme Court has laid down the sequence for completing the constitution of the State Bar Councils and taking forward the reconstitution of the Bar Council of India, directing that the co-option of women members be completed first, the composition of each Council notified next, and elections of office-bearers and the Bar Council of India representative held after that.
The order was passed on 2 September 2026 by a Bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana, in two writ petitions: W.P. (Civil) No. 1049 of 2026, filed by M. Varadhan, and W.P. (Civil) No. 1092 of 2026, filed by Yogamaya M.G. It was uploaded to the Court's website on 7 November 2026.
The Court also directed all State Bar Councils to file compliance reports, and recorded that the Attorney General and the Solicitor General would be actively associated with the policy-making process leading to any policy decision taken before the new Bar Council of India is constituted. Notice was issued to all State Bar Councils, and the matters were listed for 23 September 2026 to await the first compliance reports.
How the matter reached this stage
The core issue in the petitions concerns the constitution and composition of the State Bar Councils and the Bar Council of India in accordance with the Advocates Act, 1961 and the rules framed under it.
Elections to the State Bar Councils have since been conducted pursuant to various orders passed by the Court in M. Varadhan v. Union of India, W.P. (Civil) No. 1319 of 2023. Separately, by orders dated 4 December 2025 and 8 December 2025 in Yogamaya M.G. v. Union of India, W.P. (Civil) No. 581 of 2024, the Court had directed that there shall be 30% representation for women members of the Bar in every State Bar Council, of which 20% was to be directly elected and 10% was to be co-opted.
When the manner and modalities of co-option arose, the Court, by an order dated 4 August 2026 in Yogamaya M.G., resolved that the Chief Justices of the jurisdictional High Courts, in consultation with the newly elected members of the respective State Bar Councils, shall nominate two women members, preferably from among former women judges of the respective High Courts or senior women members of the Bar.
The sequence the Court directed
The September order removes uncertainty about the next steps. Once the co-option exercise is complete, the composition of the State Bar Councils will stand notified. The Court requested all Chief Justices to complete the co-option within two weeks, and directed that the composition of the newly elected State Bar Councils be notified within one week thereafter.
Following notification, each State Bar Council is required to elect its Chairperson, Vice-Chairperson and office-bearers, as well as one member from amongst its members as a member of the Bar Council of India under Section 4(1)(c) of the Advocates Act, 1961. The Court directed that these elections be conducted at the earliest, and specifically within two weeks from the date of notification of the composition.
All State Bar Councils were directed to file compliance reports. On receipt of those reports, the issue of the constitution of the Bar Council of India under Section 4 of the Advocates Act, 1961, is to be considered.
The interim arrangement
While the reconstitution is pending, senior counsel for the Bar Council of India and its office-bearers, Maninder Singh and S. Guru Krishna Kumar, fairly stated that the Attorney General for India and the Solicitor General of India shall be actively associated with the policy-making process leading to any policy decision that may be taken before the new Bar Council of India is constituted. The Court recorded that statement in its order.
The order also permits dasti service, in addition to regular service, and issues notice to all State Bar Councils. The matters were posted for 23 September 2026 to await the first compliance reports.
What followed: the contempt petition
In connected proceedings, the Court later disposed of a contempt petition filed by M. Varadhan, Diary No. 48292 of 2026 in W.P. (Civil) No. 1319 of 2023. By an order dated 2 November 2026, a Bench of the same three judges disposed of the contempt petition with liberty to the petitioner to challenge a circular dated 21 July 2026 issued by the Bar Council of India, based on its resolution dated 19 July 2026, in the event that the resolution or circular is sought to be given effect to.
The contempt order condoned the delay in filing and disposed of the pending applications, including the application for exemption from filing the residential address of the respondents. It records no finding on the merits of the circular or the resolution.
What the order does not decide
The September order is an interlocutory directions order, not a final disposal of the writ petitions. It does not decide the validity of any election, co-option or notification, and it does not record whether the directed steps were completed on the timelines it set. Its time periods run from 2 September 2026, the date of the order, and the upload on 7 November 2026 does not restart them.
The November contempt order likewise decides nothing about the Bar Council of India's July 2026 circular or resolution; it only preserves the petitioner's liberty to challenge them if they are given effect to.
BANTHRY ANALYSISFor law students
This pair of orders shows the Supreme Court managing an institutional transition in stages. The September order does not decide the petitions; it builds a timetable — co-option, then notification, then elections — and keeps the matter alive through compliance reports and a fixed return date. That is the Court acting as a supervisor of a process rather than as a final adjudicator of a dispute.
The November contempt order shows the other side of the same coin. A contempt petition is not a roving remedy for every grievance about the process: where the grievance is a circular that may or may not be acted upon, the Court disposes of the petition while preserving a challenge to the circular itself. Notice the device — "liberty to challenge" — which keeps the substantive question available in the right forum at the right time.
READING PROMPTSQuestions for a closer reading
- What sequence did the Court direct for completing the constitution of the State Bar Councils, and within what periods?
- What was the 30% representation for women members directed in the earlier orders, and how was it to be filled?
- What did the Court direct about the role of the Attorney General and the Solicitor General until the new Bar Council of India is constituted?
