Appointment of Justice V. Mohana as only the second woman directly elevated from the Bar to the Supreme Court reignites the debate on institutionalizing gender quotas to shatter the higher judiciary's persistent glass ceiling.
It is the unseen, systemic barriers that restrict women from reaching the highest position of the judicial hierarchy, such as the Supreme Court or the position of Chief Justice of India (CJI).
Invisible Institutional Barriers: The higher judiciary operates as an "old boys’ club," where male judges from privileged backgrounds select candidates with similar profiles.
Gender Bias in Career Advancement: Collegiums apply higher standards of scrutiny to women.
Disproportionate Attrition Rates: Hostile work environments, sexual harassment, and a lack of supportive infrastructure trigger high attrition among women litigators, shrinking the pool for direct Bar elevations.
"Uncle Judges" Syndrome: The lack of transparency promotes the "Uncle Judges Syndrome," where familial connections dominate selection, excluding first-generation women lawyers lacking entrenched networks.
Representation in the Supreme Court: As of June 2026, only two women judges out of the total 38 are serving in the Supreme Court: Justice B. V. Nagarathna and Justice V. Mohana
Representation in High Courts: Women comprise only 14.8% (116 out of 765) of sitting High Court judges. Eight High Courts, including Manipur, Meghalaya, Tripura, and Uttarakhand, feature zero women judges.
Representation in District Judiciary: Women comprise 27.6% of the lower judiciary. States with reservations, like Telangana (44.03%) and Andhra Pradesh (37.54%), show higher participation.
Marginalization of Bar Appointees: Women make up only 11% of all Bar appointees to High Courts, compared to 89% men.
Lack of Intersectional Diversity: Only one Muslim woman, Justice Fathima Beevi, has reached the Supreme Court. Zero Dalit or Adivasi women have been appointed to the Supreme Court.
Strengthening Constitutional Equality: Adequate representation transforms formal equality into substantive equality, ensuring state institutions reflect societal demographics.
Diversity in Judicial Decision-Making: A diverse bench integrates pluralistic perspectives, ensuring adjudications recognize the real-world implications of gendered harms and socio-economic vulnerabilities.
Enhancing Public Confidence: Inclusive courts reinforce democratic legitimacy, as women litigants experience higher trust when they see themselves represented.
Inclusive Justice Delivery: Women judges dismantle systemic barriers, reducing the stigma survivors of gender-based violence face during trials.
Breaking Professional Stereotypes: Visible female judges decrease courtroom sexism and dismantle patriarchal stereotypes regarding women's competence.
Cultivating Mentorship Pipelines: Senior women judges act as role models, providing active mentorship for junior women lawyers.
|
Constitutional Basis for Gender Equality Article 14: Ensures equality before the law, mandating a non-discriminatory appointment process. Article 15(3): Empowers the state to formulate affirmative action policies for women. Article 16: Guarantees equal opportunity in public employment, requiring the Collegium to correct systemic biases. Article 39(a) and 39(d): Directs the state to secure equal rights and equal pay for equal work, principles demanding equitable career advancement. |
Correcting Historical Exclusion: A structured quota rectifies the imbalance that restricted female Supreme Court judges to just 12 since its establishment in 1950.
Accelerating Gender Parity: Affirmative action ensures parity, similar to the 33% reservation mandated for women in legislatures.
Creating Role Models: Institutionalized representation provides visible leaders for female litigants and lawyers.
Improving Diversity: A "shortlist parity" principle ensures competent women from diverse intersections secure fair opportunities.
Neutralizing the Seniority Trap: Quotas bypass the seniority rule, which systematically excludes women who enter the profession later.
Aligning with Global Norms: Quotas operationalize the principle that a judiciary must mirror the society it serves.
Concerns About Judicial Merit: Critics argue quotas might promote underqualified candidates, compromising intellectual rigor.
Judicial Independence Debate: Mandatory quotas are often viewed as infringements on the autonomy of the Collegium.
Preference for Institutional Reforms: Opponents suggest focusing on building women-friendly infrastructure and flexible working hours.
Risk of Token Representation: Numerical quotas without substantive empowerment may reduce women to token figures.
The Pipeline Justification: Skeptics cite the "pipeline problem," claiming an insufficient pool of senior women advocates exists.
Judicial Discretion Constraints: Rigid quotas restrict the CJI and High Court Chief Justices' discretion in selecting the best talent.
Lower Representation in Senior Bar: Women account for roughly 10% of total advocates, and only 2.9% (76 women) of Supreme Court Senior Advocates.
Work-Life Balance Challenges: Gender stereotypes force the brunt of domestic responsibilities onto women, hindering their ability to sustain grueling litigation hours.
Informal Networking Constraints: Women without connections to judicial families are excluded from the "old boys' club."
Gender Stereotypes: Clients prefer male advocates for high-stakes litigation, limiting women's visibility for bench elevation.
High Executive Rejection Rates: From 2017 to 2025, the confirmation rate for women recommended from the Bar was only 77.9%, compared to 83.8% for men.
Grossly Inadequate Infrastructure: Nearly 22% of 6,000 trial courts lack basic women's washrooms.
Diversity-Based Appointments: Amend Articles 124 and 217 to mandate that appointments reflect the country's gender, caste, and religious composition.
Transparent Selection: Transition to an open application system with public criteria.
Mentorship: Implement structured programs to train and retain junior women lawyers.
Gender Quotas: Adopt the Belgian Strategy of mandating that every third appointment be a woman until a 33.3% baseline is achieved.
Strengthening the Bar: Promote affirmative action in designating Senior Advocates and mandate representation in State Bar Councils.
Equalizing Appointment Age: Target younger women from the Bar in their early 50s to ensure sufficient tenure for CJI eligibility.
Increasing female representation in higher courts marks a transition toward substantive constitutional equality. To permanently dismantle the glass ceiling, India must implement institutionalized quotas, transparent Collegium systems, and infrastructural reforms.
Source: INDIANEXPRESS
|
PRACTICE QUESTION Q. "The glass ceiling in the Indian Higher Judiciary is reinforced not by a lack of merit, but by opaque appointment mechanisms and systemic institutional biases." Discuss. 150 words |
Women remain underrepresented in higher courts because the opaque, male-dominated collegium appointment system lacks transparent selection metrics, excludes gender reservation policies, and disproportionately penalises family-related career breaks.
The judicial glass ceiling constitutes the invisible, unwritten, and systemic institutional barriers that prevent qualified female lawyers and judges from securing top-tier leadership positions within constitutional courts.
Articles 14, 15, and 16 of the Constitution of India mandate gender equity by guaranteeing absolute equality before the law, strictly prohibiting discrimination based on sex, and ensuring equal opportunity in public employment.
Women lawyers struggle to ascend to higher judicial seats due to deep-rooted patriarchal biases within bar associations, hostile and non-inclusive court cultures, a severe lack of gender-sensitive infrastructure like crèches, and rigid eligibility rules regarding continuous legal practice.
© 2026 iasgyan. All right reserved
