India’s judiciary is one of its most powerful institutions, entrusted with upholding constitutional values, safeguarding civil liberties, and ensuring justice for all. Yet, the Supreme Court of India, the pinnacle of this judicial system, starkly reflects the persistent inequities it is often called upon to challenge. Gender imbalance remains deeply entrenched in the corridors of India's highest court.
Since its establishment in 1950, the Supreme Court has had only eleven women judges, out of more than 250 appointed. The first woman justice, Justice M Fathima Beevi, was appointed as late as 1989, almost four decades after the court’s inception. A report shows that women judges in the Supreme Court serve, on average, about 4.4 years, whereas men serve about 5.4 years. The fact that women continue to be so vastly underrepresented in an institution symbolising justice underscores a disconnect between constitutional ideals and institutional reality.
Missed Opportunities
The numbers alone speak volumes. In 2024, only three women served as judges in a bench of 34, a proportion that hovered under 10 percent. Instead of narrowing, the gap seems to be widening today, with only one woman serving as a judge. No woman has ever become the Chief Justice of India (CJI), though this might change soon. The most senior woman judge, Justice BV Nagarathna, is slated to become the first woman Chief Justice in 2027, if the convention of seniority is followed.
But the symbolic appointment of a woman CJI, while welcome, hardly makes up for decades of exclusion. Women’s representation is not just a matter of optics or tokenism. It has a tangible impact on the nature and quality of justice delivered. A judiciary that fails to reflect the diversity of its citizens risks perpetuating institutional blind spots, especially in cases involving gender-based violence, discrimination, and family law.
When a bench is overwhelmingly male, how do they fairly decide on cases affecting women’s bodily autonomy, workplace rights, or reproductive freedoms? Diversity in judicial thought is not just beneficial - it is essential.
Barriers Beyond The Bench
The issue of representation in the Supreme Court stems from a leaky pipeline. This starts with education in the legal field and extends through the profession. Very few women are elevated from the bar to the judiciary, and even fewer from lower courts to high courts, where the pool for Supreme Court appointments is typically drawn.
Structural barriers include the ‘old boys’ networks’ that dominate the legal fraternity. There are also the usual notions about women’s suitability for high-pressure roles, and caregiving duties. These often compel talented women to stall in their careers.
The Global Scenario
As of 2023, the United States Supreme Court has four women among its nine justices. The United Kingdom’s Supreme Court has had women in senior judicial positions since the early 2000s. In countries like Canada and South Africa, a noticeable shift toward greater gender parity is underway.
However, it’s not just about catching up with the West. Closer to home, countries like Nepal and Bangladesh have taken important strides in judicial gender diversity. This makes India’s slow progress harder to justify, especially considering it has had women in other high offices, including the presidency and the prime ministership.
To compound issues, there is a difference in the appointment ages to the Supreme Court - 60.5 years for women, versus 59.5 years for men. This later age of appointment for women likely contributes to shorter tenure windows, which in turn reduces their chance to ascend to senior roles or positions of influence.
Demands And Reforms
In recent years, the question of gender representation in India’s judiciary has gained traction. Civil society groups, legal scholars, and some progressive judges have openly called for greater inclusivity. Articles 14, 15, and 16 of the Indian Constitution guarantee equality and prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex. Yet, these articles have not been extended to institutional reform within the judiciary.
One argument frequently made is that merit must trump affirmative action. But merit cannot thrive in environments where the playing field is uneven. If there are reservations and gender quotas in Parliament and government jobs to correct social inequalities, why should the judiciary be exempt?
The Collegium System, where judges appoint judges, has been criticised for being opaque and biased. Proposals for a Judicial Appointments Commission with statutory backing and clear diversity mandates have also been discussed.
Silver Linings
It is not all bleak. Recent appointments, though few, have introduced a refreshing wave of female voices. Judges like Justice Indu Malhotra, the first woman elevated directly from the bar, and Justice R Banumathi, known for her powerful opinions, have left indelible marks. Moreover, the Supreme Court has delivered path-breaking judgments on women’s rights, from decriminalising adultery and instant triple talaq to affirming a woman’s right to choose her partner.
Yet, the judiciary cannot sit on the sidelines of a conversation on gender justice. It must lead by example. As Justice Indu Malhotra said, “Equality means no discrimination, equity means fair treatment, empowerment means infusing women with power. It is the power to take decisions with regard to their own life, subject to the provisions of law … If there are women in positions of power, a lot of these issues will go away. The stereotyping of women, the roles attributed to men and women — that mindset has to change. Laws can only go so far.”