Judicial Gender Gap: Why India’s Courts Need More Women?
With only 1 woman judge in the Supreme Court and ~13% in High Courts, India's judiciary reflects deep gender imbalance, raising questions on constitutional morality, access to justice, diversity, and judicial legitimacy.
Introduction
India’s judiciary — a guardian of constitutional morality and gender justice — significantly lacks women. The retirement of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia in August 2025 left only one woman judge in the Supreme Court, reigniting debate on judicial diversity, legitimacy, and inclusivity.
Context & Background
Since 1950, only 11 women out of 287 judges have been appointed to the Supreme Court. Women constitute just 13% of High Court judges and ~15% of advocates, reflecting structural and societal barriers.
Key Points
- •Constitutional Mandate of Equality: Articles 14, 15, 16 & 39A demand equal opportunity & gender-just institutions; judiciary itself must reflect constitutional values.
- •Judicial Legitimacy & Public Trust: A judiciary lacking gender diversity risks perception of bias → affects institutional credibility.
- •Diversity Enhances Reasoning: Women judges bring lived experiences, improving adjudication in gender-justice, family law, harassment & violence cases.
- •Substantive vs Formal Equality: Proof that gender-neutral appointment processes produce gender-skewed outcomes → need substantive affirmative action.
- •Glass Ceiling in Judiciary: Although 50%+ in lower judiciary in some states, women rarely rise to higher courts → structural career bottleneck.
- •Comparative Constitutionalism: Many democracies mandate judicial diversity (Canada, UK, South Africa). India lacks such institutional compulsion.
- •Collegium Opaqueness: Absence of transparent criteria → unconscious biases, old-boys network, and informal gatekeeping culture.
- •Work-Family Penalty: Rigid schedules & career breaks create professional attrition → no institutional support (crèches, flexible chambers, safety).
- •Feminist Jurisprudence Gap: Low representation weakens evolution of gender-sensitive constitutional doctrine (e.g., workplace dignity, marital rape).
- •Diversity as Judicial Reform: Strengthens justice delivery, deliberative quality, female litigant confidence & judicial empathy.
- •Ethics & Constitutional Morality: Structural exclusion contradicts Ambedkar’s vision of social & political democracy.
- •Pipeline Problem: Low senior advocate titles → small pool for elevation → need systemic nurturing.
- •Executive-Judiciary Coordination: Centre must prioritise gender appointments as part of judicial reforms & ease of justice mission.
Related Entities
Impact & Significance
- •Enhances trust in rule of law & mirrors society's diversity
- •Improves gender-justice outcomes (sexual violence, custody, property, service matters)
- •Nurtures future talent pipeline in legal profession
- •Aligns India with global democratic norms
Challenges & Criticism
- •Opaque collegium system, no diversity mandate
- •Bias against women litigators seeking senior designation
- •Institutional hostility, harassment & sexism at Bar
- •Career-family conflict without support infrastructure
- •Lack of data-driven diversity tracking & annual gender audits
Future Outlook
- •Multi-tier reforms in Bar → Bench → Collegium pipeline
- •Statutory diversity guidelines or judicial charter on representation
- •Institutional reforms for childcare, safety, and flexible legal practice
- •Mandatory gender-sensitivity training for judges & lawyers
- •Parliamentary oversight on judicial diversity metrics
UPSC Relevance
- • GS-2: Judiciary, Separation of Powers, Constitutional Values
- • GS-4: Ethical Leadership, Gender sensitivity, Accountability
- • Essay: Women in public institutions, Gender Justice
- • PSIR Optional: Political Representation & Democratic Deepening
Sample Questions
Prelims
Consider the following statements regarding women in the Indian judiciary:
1. Since 1950, fewer than 15 women have served as judges in the Supreme Court.
2. The Collegium system formally mandates gender diversity in appointments.
3. Women constitute less than 15% of judges in High Courts.
Answer: Option 1, Option 3
Explanation:
Statement 2 is incorrect: There is no mandatory gender diversity requirement in the Collegium system.
Mains
Despite constitutional guarantees of equality, the participation of women in India’s higher judiciary remains low. Discuss the causes and suggest reforms.
Introduction: Women form barely 4% of Supreme Court judges historically. Such under-representation undermines constitutional morality & judicial legitimacy.
Body:
• Causes: Collegium opacity, gendered career attrition, patriarchal Bar culture, eligibility bottlenecks, lack of support systems.
• Consequences: Weakened gender justice, reduced trust, democratic deficit, judicial blindness to social realities.
• Reforms: Transparent appointment norms, diversity charter, gender quotas, senior-designation reforms, infrastructure support, gender training.
Conclusion: A gender-balanced judiciary is not benevolence but constitutional duty — critical to India’s march toward substantive equality, justice & democratic legitimacy.