India Needs More Women Judges in the Supreme Court

Syllabus:

GS 2 :● Gender issues in judiciary ● Governance

Why in the News?

Artificial Intelligence (AI) holds transformative potential for India’s economy, but its adoption must be carefully managed to avoid exacerbating inequality and job displacement. This article examines India’s AI policy challenge: how to balance automation and augmentation, strengthen digital infrastructure, empower small businesses, and promote skilling to ensure that AI becomes a driver of inclusive, employment-rich growth.

Introduction: The Gender Imbalance in India’s Higher Judiciary

• The Supreme Court of India, being the highest constitutional court, plays a pivotal role not only in interpreting the law but also in shaping the ethos of justice in society.
• ● Despite being a torchbearer of equality, inclusion, and fundamental rights, the institution itself suffers from a visible imbalance in its composition.

1. The sanctioned strength is 34 judges (including the Chief Justice of India).
2. Only one woman judge (Justice B.V. Nagarathna) serves.
3. Historically, only 11 women judges have ever been appointed since the Court’s inception in 1950.
4. This reflects just 3.8% representation of women judges among a total of nearly 287 appointments so far.

Recent Appointments and Missed Opportunities

• Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia’s retirement in August 2025 created two vacancies in the Supreme Court.
• ● Instead of seizing the opportunity to correct the gender imbalance, the Collegium recommended and the government appointed two new judges:

1. Justice Vipul Pancholi (from Gujarat High Court)
2. Justice Alok Aradhe (from Karnataka High Court)
3. ● Both were sworn in on August 29, 2025, but no woman judge was appointed, leaving Justice Nagarathna the sole woman on the bench.
4. ● Justice Nagarathna, being part of the Supreme Court Collegium, dissented against the appointment of Justice Vipul Pancholi on grounds of seniority and regional balance.
5. ● However, her dissent was ignored, reflecting two key issues:
6. Women judges’ voices are sidelined in the decision-making process.
7. Collegium decisions lack accountability and transparency, as dissent notes are rarely addressed.

The Gender Gap in Direct Appointments from the Bar

• From 1950 onwards, nine male judges have been elevated to the Supreme Court directly from the Bar (i.e., lawyers appointed without serving as High Court judges).
• ● Only one woman — Justice Indu Malhotra (2018–2021) — has ever been appointed by this route.
• ● This gap exists despite: ○ Several highly accomplished women Senior Advocates regularly appearing before the Supreme Court. ○ The Supreme Court bar being a traditional pipeline for eminent legal minds to enter the judiciary.
• ● The exclusion of women shows a systemic bias in recognising male lawyers’ stature and professionalism while overlooking equally capable women in the legal profession.

Why Gender Should Be a Criterion in Judicial Appointments

• In India, caste, region, and religion have long been explicitly considered in judicial appointments to reflect diversity and inclusivity.
• ● However, gender is not given any institutionalised recognition, which means:

1. Women are treated as “exceptions” when appointed to the higher judiciary.
2. There is no policy ensuring consistent or proportional representation.
3. ● Without a systemic corrective mechanism, the default male dominance in the higher judiciary continues unchecked.
4. ● Gender diversity should be recognised as fundamental because:
5. Women constitute roughly 50% of India’s population.
6. Justice delivery cannot be “representative” if half of society is structurally excluded.
7. Inclusion of women judges bridges the gap of public confidence in courts.
8. Women judges bring unique experiential perspectives in cases involving gender justice, family law, sexual harassment, rape, and social rights.

The Collegium System: Secrecy and Lack of Transparency

• Judicial appointments are governed by the Collegium System (established in the Second and Third Judges’ Cases by the Supreme Court itself).
• ● Process: ○ The Chief Justice of India (CJI), in consultation with the senior-most four judges, makes recommendations. ○ Suggestions go to the Union Law Ministry → then to the Prime Minister → then to the President of India for approval.
• ● Problems Identified: ○ The opacity of the Collegium process prevents scrutiny of how names are shortlisted or excluded. ○ Dissent is rarely recorded or respected (e.g., Justice Nagarathna’s dissent). ○ Recommendations often lack clear criteria—sometimes based on seniority, sometimes on diversity, but inconsistently applied. ○ Collegium resolutions are selectively disclosed to the public; recent CJIs (such as D.Y. Chandrachud) released reasons, but many others avoided transparency.
• ● Without transparency: ○ Women and other underrepresented groups in the judiciary remain ignored. ○ The system nurtures elitism and exclusivity instead of equal opportunity.

Career Trajectories and Shorter Tenures for Women Judges

• Women judges historically get appointed later in life, reducing their tenure in the Supreme Court.
• ● Consequences: ○ They retire before reaching seniority positions (e.g., becoming Chief Justice of India or being part of the Collegium for long). ○ Example: ■ Justice Indu Malhotra → tenure less than 3 years.
• ■ Justice Fathima Beevi → tenure around 2.5 years. ○ Among men, such extremely short tenures are rare.
• ● Justice Nagarathna will become India’s first woman Chief Justice of India (CJI), but only for 36 days (Sept 24, 2027 – Oct 29, 2027).
• ● Such short stints symbolically highlight systemic delay in promoting women judges to higher benches.

The current judicial transfer policy also impacts women judges disproportionately, often leading to shorter tenures and limited opportunities for advancement.

Historical Overview of Women Judges in the Supreme Court of India

• Till 2025, India has had only 11 women judges in the Supreme Court, listed below: ○ Justice Fathima Beevi (1989–1992) – first woman judge. ○ Justice Sujata V. Manohar (1994–1999). ○ Justice Ruma Pal (2000–2006). ○ Justice Gyan Sudha Mishra (2010–2014). ○ Justice Ranjana Prakash Desai (2011–2014). ○ Justice R. Banumathi (2014–2020). ○ Justice Indu Malhotra (2018–2021). ○ Justice Indira Banerjee (2018–2022). ○ Justice Hima Kohli (2021–2024). ○ Justice Bela M. Trivedi (2021–2025). ○ Justice B.V. Nagarathna (2021–2027).
• ● Observations: ○ Appointments are sparse and inconsistent → long gaps with no women at all. ○ Most belong to upper-caste and privileged sections; almost no SC/ST representation. ○ Justice Fathima Beevi remains the only woman from a religious minority.

Diversity Beyond Gender: Caste and Minority Inclusion

• Women judges appointed so far: ○ Predominantly upper-caste Hindus, reinforcing socio-legal hierarchies. ○ No representation of Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs). ○ Only one Muslim woman (Justice Beevi).
• ● Implication: ○ Exclusion is double-layered — not only are women underrepresented, but within women, marginalised communities are virtually excluded from higher judiciary. ○ When diversity is discussed by the Collegium (regional/caste/religious), women remain outside explicit consideration.

Judicial Contributions of Women Judges (Why Representation Matters)

Women judges have made landmark interventions in:

● Gender rights & sexual harassment cases

● Reproductive rights & equality in workplaces

● Social justice cases affecting vulnerable groups

● Their presence reaffirms that law is not neutral but shaped by lived experiences.

● Key point: It doesn’t mean women judges “only” deal with gender issues, but their perspectives broaden interpretational approaches in all kinds of cases.

Global Comparisons: Women in Apex Courts Worldwide

• United States Supreme Court: 4 women currently (out of 9).
• ● UK Supreme Court: 3 women (out of 12).
• ● Canada Supreme Court: Approximately 4–5 women consistently in recent years.
• ● South Africa Constitutional Court: Consistently around 30–40% women representation.
• ● India’s 3–10% range over decades seems abysmally low compared to global constitutional courts.

Why Representation of Women in Judiciary is Vital

• Broader Interpretation of Law: Women may interpret certain legal provisions differently, especially in family and constitutional law.
• ● Trust in Judiciary: A more representative bench instills greater public confidence.
• ● Correcting Structural Discrimination: Women judges challenge stereotypes and demonstrate equal competence.
• ● Role Models: Their presence encourages young women lawyers to aspire for higher judicial roles.
• ● Inclusive Democracy: Judiciary is a key arm of governance; its legitimacy increases when gender parity is considered.

Suggested Reforms: Making Gender Representation Institutionalised

• Written Policy for Diversity ○ Gender, caste, region, and minority representation must be codified as criteria.
• ● Transparency in Collegium ○ Publish all reasons for appointments and rejections. ○ Record dissent and address it openly.
• ● Age and Tenure Balancing ○ Appoint women at a relatively younger age to ensure they can reach senior collegium positions and possibly become CJIs.
• ● Elevating from the Bar ○ Encourage direct appointments of women Senior Advocates.
• ● Reservation-type Mandate at Collegium Level ○ E.g., Ensure a minimum 30% women representation by a target year (say, 2035).
• ● Mentorship & Pipeline Development ○ Strengthen women’s representation at High Courts to create a larger pool of eligible candidates.

To address these issues, there have been calls for a more exposed selection process and the establishment of a judicial appointments commission to ensure greater transparency and diversity in judicial appointments.

Conclusion: Towards a Truly Representative Court

• The Supreme Court of India advocates equality in judgments but fails to reflect it in composition.
• ● Women’s appointment is treated as symbolic tokenism, not a policy mandate.
• ● As an institution aspiring to guarantee justice to all, the Court must: ○ Embrace gender diversity openly. ○ Ensure systemic corrections rather than rare symbolic inclusions. ○ Recognise that representation is essential not as charity, but as constitutional necessity.
• ● India’s democracy cannot be complete unless its highest court looks like the people it represents.

The need for three women judges in the Supreme Court is not just a matter of gender equality, but a crucial step towards a more diverse and representative judiciary that can better serve the needs of all citizens.

MAINS PRACTICE QUESTION

1. “Despite being the guardian of equality, the Supreme Court of India suffers from severe gender imbalance in its composition. Discuss the reasons behind the inadequate representation of women in the higher judiciary and suggest policy measures to institutionalise gender diversity in judicial appointments.”