Copyright infringement not intended
Picture Courtesy: THE HINDU
The retirement of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia in August 2025 left the Supreme Court with only one woman judge.
Supreme Court: As of September 2025, only Justice B.V. Nagarathna remains the sole woman judge out of 34 sanctioned posts.
High Courts: Only 14% of High Court judges are women, according to the India Justice Report 2025.
District Courts: According to India Justice Report (IJR) 2025, Women constitute 38.3% of district court judges (up from 30% in 2017), with states like Goa (70%), Meghalaya (62.7%), and Telangana (52.8%) leading.
Enriched Jurisprudence: Women judges bring diverse perspectives, enhancing judicial reasoning in cases involving gender justice, workplace equality, and sexual violence. Rulings like Justice Gyan Sudha Misra’s Vishakha case (1997) on workplace sexual harassment and Justice Indu Malhotra’s Sabarimala case (2018) on women’s temple entry reflect this impact.
Public Trust and Legitimacy: A gender-balanced judiciary reflects India’s diverse society, strengthening public confidence. The absence of women undermines the judiciary’s claim to represent “We, the People” under the Constitution’s Preamble.
Constitutional Morality: Articles 14 and 15 guarantee equality, and a diverse judiciary upholds this principle, ensuring inclusive interpretations of constitutional rights.
Role-Model Effect: Visible women judges inspire young women lawyers, breaking the glass ceiling in a male-dominated profession.
Global Commitments: Increased women’s representation aligns with SDG 5 (Gender Equality) and the Beijing Platform for Action (1995), which emphasizes women in decision-making roles.
Deep-Rooted Patriarchy: Societal gender norms and the “old boys’ club” mentality limit women’s networking and elevation opportunities. Women face heightened scrutiny and bias in appointments.
Opaque Collegium System: The Collegium’s lack of transparent criteria and accountability often overlooks women candidates. Since 2020, nine women recommended for High Court judgeships were rejected.
Late Elevations: Women judges are appointed at an older age (average 53.1 vs. 51.8 for men), reducing their tenure and leadership opportunities.
Lack of Supportive Infrastructure: Absence of facilities like crèches, nursing rooms, and gender-sensitive policies discourages women’s long-term judicial careers.
Limited Pipeline: Only 15% of 1.7 million registered advocates are women, and few reach senior advocate or Bar Council positions, narrowing the pool for higher judiciary roles (the “funnel effect”).
Institutional Inertia: Gender is not a formal appointment criterion, unlike caste or regional considerations, reflecting a lack of institutional will.
Constitutional Provision: The original constitutional provisions (Articles 124 and 217) gave the President, acting on the advice of the Council of Ministers, the authority to appoint Supreme Court and High Court judges after "consultation" with judicial members.
First Judges Case (1981): Supreme Court ruled that the "consultation" mentioned in the Constitution did not mean "concurrence". This judgment, in S.P. Gupta vs Union of India, affirmed the executive's primacy in judicial appointments and transfers.
Second Judges Case (1993): The Court overturned its previous ruling. It held that "consultation" must mean "concurrence," effectively giving the judiciary primacy.
Third Judges Case (1998): This ruling, in response to a presidential reference, expanded the Collegium. The Supreme Court ruled that the CJI must consult a collegium of four senior-most Supreme Court judges.
Government's Role: The government can object to or seek clarification on the Collegium's recommendations, but if the Collegium repeats the same names, the government is bound to make the appointments.
The NJAC and its rejection (2014–2015)
NJAC Act (2014): Parliament passed the 99th Constitutional Amendment Act to establish the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC). The NJAC was a six-member body comprising:
Fourth Judges Case (2015): Supreme Court struck down the NJAC Act as unconstitutional by a 4:1 majority. The court held that the inclusion of the executive and other non-judicial members in the appointments process violated the "basic structure" doctrine of the Constitution by compromising judicial independence.
Mandate Gender Diversity: The Collegium must institutionalize gender as a selection criterion, ensuring at least one-third women representation in higher judiciary appointments, as suggested by the Supreme Court Bar Association.
Transparent Collegium Process: Publish clear appointment criteria and reasons for rejections, especially for women candidates, to enhance accountability.
Mentorship Development: Create mentorship programs for women lawyers and judicial officers, focusing on leadership development.
Gender-Sensitive Policies: Introduce flexible working hours, maternity benefits, and infrastructure like crèches and safe restrooms in courts to support women’s career continuity.
Diversity Data Collection: The Department of Justice should collect and publish social and gender diversity data for all judicial appointments, as recommended by the Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, and Law and Justice (2023).
Regional Benches: Establish Supreme Court regional benches to improve access and diversity, as suggested by the Standing Committee (2023), potentially increasing opportunities for women from diverse regions.
The continued gender imbalance in higher judiciary represents a significant challenge to its constitutional commitment to equality and inclusivity. Bridging this gap is not merely a symbolic gesture but an ethical imperative and a constitutional necessity.
Source: THE HINDU
|
PRACTICE QUESTION Q. Discuss the desirability of greater representation to women in the higher judiciary to ensure diversity, equity and inclusiveness. (UPSC 2021) |
Justice Fathima Beevi was the first woman appointed to the Supreme Court in 1989.
The Collegium System is a method for appointing and transferring judges to the Supreme Court and High Courts.
This judgment introduced the Collegium System. It ruled that the CJI's opinion was not an individual one, but that of a collegium of senior-most judges. The recommendation of the Collegium was made binding on the President.
© 2025 iasgyan. All right reserved
