On Monday, the Delhi High Court criticized the practice of displaying hoardings and posters for candidates in bar elections across the national capital.

A division bench, including Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, described this trend as a “menace” and emphasized that such financial resources should not be wasted on bar elections.

The court was considering a PIL that called for reserving 33% of seats for women lawyers in the elections for the Bar Council of Delhi (BCD), the Delhi High Court Bar Association (DHCBA), and all District Bar Associations in Delhi.

During the todays hearing, Senior Advocate Mohit Mathur, President of the DHCBA, along with the counsels for the BCD and the President of the Coordination Committee of all district bar associations, were present at the hearing.

The court instructed that senior Bar leaders should convey the message that the practice of displaying candidates' posters for Bar elections is inappropriate and must be discontinued.

“A message must go that it is not an investment for a return to be back. This is very wrong which is happening at the Bar. We want leaders of the bar to convey this…. This poster hoarding business must stop,” ACJ said.

He further directed the senior counsels representing the lawyers' bodies to take suo motu notice of the issue and to instill a sense of fear regarding disqualification among the candidates to prevent them from engaging in such practices.

“This concept must stop that it is an investment to be made… If you as leaders take proactive stand in this, it will get curbed. This is a menace which must stop. We owe this to the young generation of lawyers, they must know this should stop,” ACJ added.

In March, a full bench banned prospective candidates from installing hoardings, pasting posters, or hosting parties to advance their electoral prospects, aiming to maintain integrity in the Bar elections and prevent the influence of money power.

During today's hearing, the court was informed that the Shahdara Bar Association supports the PIL for reserving 33% of seats for women lawyers in elections, and that other district bar associations also back the reservation proposal.

Senior Advocate Mohit Mathur informed the court that, in light of the Supreme Court ruling, reserving one-third of seats for women lawyers in the Executive Committee of the DHCBA would not be an appropriate approach.

He noted that, with over 35,000 members registered with the DHCBA, additional time is needed to deliberate on the issue. In response, the court directed that a meeting be organized between the DHCBA and the Coordination Committee of all district court bar associations within two weeks. The matter is scheduled to be heard again in September.