An elected member of the 13th Bar Council of Kerala has formally objected to the co-option of a woman member, citing a lack of transparency in the selection process. Advocate N. Manoj Kumar, who also serves on the Bar Council of India, wrote to the Chief Justice of the Kerala High Court, Justice Soumen Sen, regarding the appointment of Advocate Girija Gopal. The letter argues that the decision did not reflect the overwhelming preference expressed by the council’s elected members during a recent consultation.
The nomination process was initiated pursuant to Supreme Court directions requiring the inclusion of women members. The Chief Justice nominated two names for the positions: Senior Advocate Sumathy Dandapani and Advocate Girija Gopal. While Dandapani’s selection aligned with the group’s consensus, Gopal’s appointment sparked specific criticism from Kumar, who contends the choice ignored the collective voice of the elected body.
The Consultation and the Numbers
A consultation meeting was held on September 1 to gather views on the two available slots. According to the representation, 20 out of the 23 elected members participated in this session.
The discussion focused on identifying candidates who could best represent the Bar. The outcome of this meeting was meant to guide the final decision on the co-options. The data from the meeting is stark. Seventeen members specifically proposed the names of Adv. A. Parvathi Menon and Sr. Adv. Sumathy Dandapani.
Another member supported this pairing, bringing the total support for these two names to 18 out of the 20 participants. In contrast, only one participating member proposed Girija K. Gopal’s name. This significant discrepancy forms the core of Kumar’s objection.
Read Also: Allahabad High Court rejects fugitive’s attempted murder appeal
Questions on Representation and Diversity
Beyond the raw numbers, Kumar raised concerns about the principle of diversity within the Bar Council. He noted that Girija K. Gopal has been associated with Messrs Dandapani Associates. Since Sr. Adv. Sumathy Dandapani was also selected for co-option, Kumar argued that this connection is relevant. He questioned whether selecting two individuals with professional ties to the same firm provides the wider representation intended by the co-option mandate.
Kumar also addressed the specific reasons given for rejecting Adv. Parvathi Menon’s candidature. The objection stated that she was already serving on several committees constituted by the High Court. The representation counters that this argument is flawed. During the consultation, the Chief Justice reportedly observed that her committee responsibilities actually demonstrated her competence. When concerns were raised about her availability, she indicated a willingness to devote the necessary time to the Council if selected. The letter argues that her prior service was viewed positively by the presiding judge, not as a disqualifier.
The focus here is not on the merit of the individuals but on the procedural fairness of the selection method.
Request for Reconsideration
Manoj Kumar clarified in his letter that his objection is not directed at any individual candidate. He stated that his endeavor is rooted in the principle of giving weight to the collective voice of the elected members. He argued that when 18 out of 20 participants support a particular choice, departing from that consensus requires compelling reasons. Notably, no reasons were communicated for preferring Girija K. Gopal over Adv. A. Parvathi Menon.
The decision was formally communicated by the Registrar General through a letter dated September 7, 2026. Kumar has requested the Chief Justice to reconsider this decision. He is asking that the court give effect to the preference expressed by the elected members during the September 1 consultation. The letter serves as a formal check on the administrative process, seeking to ensure that the democratic input of the Bar Council members is respected in the final appointments.