Syllabus: Judiciary
Source: TH
Context: With the retirement of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia in August 2025, only one woman judge (Justice B.V. Nagarathna) remains in the Supreme Court out of 34.
- The acute gender imbalance raises questions about diversity, representation, and inclusivity in India’s top court.
About Gender Imbalance in the Supreme Court of India:
What it is?
- Gender imbalance refers to the gross under-representation of women judges in the Supreme Court, despite constitutional guarantees of equality (Articles 14, 15, 16).
Current Status:
- Since 1950, only 11 women judges (3.8%) out of 287 have been appointed.
- Presently, just 1 out of 34 judges is a woman.
- First woman judge: Justice Fathima Beevi (1989).
- Women judge often serve shorter tenures due to late appointments, limiting chances of rising to the Chief Justice position.
Causes of Gender Imbalance:
- Structural Barriers – Collegium system lacks institutionalised diversity criteria; gender not prioritised in appointments.
- Societal Factors – Gender stereotypes in the legal profession discourage women from leadership roles.
- Institutional Inertia – Late elevation of women judges limits tenure and prevents entry into the Collegium.
- Barriers from the Bar – Very few women Senior Advocates elevated directly to SC (only Justice Indu Malhotra so far).
- Opaque Processes – Collegium lacks transparency, making selection discretionary and exclusionary.
Challenges in Correcting Gender Imbalance:
- Opaque Collegium System – No written policy on diversity; reasons for appointments not disclosed consistently.
- Seniority & Tenure Limitations – Women are often elevated late, leaving them little time to serve in senior positions.
- Male-Dominated Legal Culture – Women face resistance in both High Courts and the Bar, limiting their pipeline to SC.
- Lack of Political & Institutional Will – Gender not treated as an “appointment criterion” unlike caste, region, or religion.
- Absence of Accountability – No mechanism to monitor or ensure gender diversity in higher judiciary.
Implications of Gender Imbalance:
- On Judiciary:
-
- Narrow Perspectives – Lack of diverse viewpoints in judgments reduces inclusivity.
- Weaker Legitimacy – Undermines the Court’s claim to represent all sections of society.
- Missed Jurisprudential Growth – Women’s lived experiences enrich interpretation of rights (e.g., gender justice, workplace equality).
- Short Tenures = Limited Leadership – Late appointments deny women chances to serve as CJI or influence Collegium decisions.
- On Society:
-
- Trust Deficit – Citizens may question judiciary’s sincerity in advancing equality while failing to reflect it internally.
- Discouragement for Women Lawyers – Aspiring women see fewer role models at the highest level.
- Undermining Constitutional Morality – Violates the spirit of Articles 14 and 15 that promote substantive equality.
- Democratic Deficit – Judiciary fails to mirror India’s gender diversity, weakening its representative legitimacy.
Way Forward:
- Institutional Reforms
- Collegium resolutions must mandate gender diversity as a criterion.
- Transparent criteria for appointments with public disclosure of reasons.
- Pipeline Development
- Greater appointments of women in High Courts.
- Encourage women from the Bar through structured mentorship and reservation in judicial services.
- Policy & Ethical Anchoring
- Adopt a written diversity policy for higher judiciary (as suggested by 2nd ARC).
- Embed constitutional morality and substantive equality in judicial appointments.
- Global Lessons
- Countries like Canada and the UK actively pursue diversity in top courts.
- India can adapt similar institutionalised approaches.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court’s credibility as the custodian of equality depends not just on its judgments but also on its own composition. Bridging the gender gap is not tokenism; it is an ethical imperative and a constitutional necessity. A judiciary that reflects the diversity of society will deepen public trust and make justice more inclusive.
