What Happened
- The incumbent Chief Justice of India acknowledged that achieving gender balance in India's higher judiciary remains an "unfinished task" and called for systemic changes to address structural barriers.
- Speaking at a legal conference, the CJI pointed to the low pipeline of women advocates making it to senior positions, the implicit biases in the collegium's selection process, and the absence of institutionalised targets for judicial appointments.
- The CJI's remarks came alongside — and in contrast with — a former CJI's sharper criticism directed specifically at the government's lack of intent, suggesting that within the legal establishment, responsibility is being shared (and deflected) between the collegium and the executive.
- The acknowledgment is significant as it came from the sitting head of the collegium — the body that directly controls Supreme Court and High Court appointments.
What Happened
- Incumbent CJI called gender balance in the higher judiciary an "unfinished task."
- Called for systemic changes including more transparent nomination processes and greater outreach to identify women candidates from diverse practice areas.
- Acknowledged that the pipeline of women advocates who qualify as credible HC/SC candidates is itself thin — a structural problem that goes beyond appointments.
- The remarks were made at a national conference on law and justice.
Static Topic Bridges
The Collegium's Role in Shaping Judicial Diversity
The collegium of the Supreme Court holds near-absolute power over judicial appointments to the higher judiciary. It operates without statutory criteria for diversity — there is no requirement to consider gender, regional, or community representation. The collegium publishes resolutions on the Supreme Court's website (a transparency reform introduced in 2019), but the deliberations remain confidential.
- SC Collegium: CJI + 4 senior-most judges of the SC.
- HC Collegium: Chief Justice of the HC + 2 senior-most HC judges, with input from the SC Collegium.
- No mandatory diversity criteria in the collegium's selection process — candidates are typically drawn from the senior bar (advocates) and the subordinate judiciary.
- Collegium recommendations are sent to the Union Government; the government can seek clarification or return a recommendation once, but if the collegium reiterates, the government must appoint.
- Following the Supreme Court's 2015 ruling striking down the NJAC, the collegium system was reaffirmed as the sole mechanism.
- Gender diversity is a voluntary commitment — no collegium has set and published numerical targets for women appointments.
Connection to this news: The CJI's call for systemic changes points directly at the collegium's own processes — an unusually self-critical acknowledgment from the head of the body that controls appointments.
Pipeline Problem: Women in the Legal Profession
Achieving gender balance in the higher judiciary requires addressing the pipeline at multiple stages: law school admissions, entry into practice, progression to senior advocate status, and ultimately eligibility for judgeship. Women make up a growing share of law graduates but remain a minority at the senior bar, which is the primary source pool for HC and SC appointments.
- Senior Advocate designation (Supreme Court of India Rules, 2013): Designated by a committee chaired by the CJI; no explicit gender targets.
- As of 2024, women constitute less than 15% of designated Senior Advocates in the Supreme Court.
- Women face structural barriers: fewer mentorship networks, bar association culture, family responsibilities without institutional support (maternity leave for advocates is unregulated).
- Subordinate judiciary (district courts and below): Women represent approximately 35% of judges — far higher than the higher judiciary, suggesting the pipeline narrows sharply above the district level.
- National Mission for Justice Delivery and Legal Reform (2011): Set broad targets for reducing pendency; no specific gender diversity targets for judicial appointments.
Connection to this news: The CJI's acknowledgment of the "pipeline problem" is important because it frames gender underrepresentation not just as a failure of appointment policy but as a systemic issue requiring interventions from the base of the legal education and practice pyramid.
Judicial Independence and Accountability: NJAC and Beyond
The debate over gender representation in the judiciary intersects with the larger debate about judicial independence versus accountability. The collegium system maximises judicial independence (judges appointing judges) but minimises accountability. The NJAC, which would have introduced external members including the Law Minister, was rejected by the SC on the grounds that executive participation would compromise judicial independence. Yet the current system is criticised precisely because its opacity allows institutional biases — including gender bias — to persist unchallenged.
- NJAC (99th Amendment, 2014): Included CJI, 2 senior SC judges, Law Minister, and 2 eminent persons as members. Struck down 4:1 in Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (2015).
- Dissenting opinion (Justice Chelameswar): Collegium system lacks transparency and accountability; NJAC should have been reformed, not struck down.
- Memorandum of Procedure (MoP): The collegium and government have been in a prolonged disagreement over finalising the MoP — which would include criteria for appointments — since 2016.
- Without a finalised MoP, there are no enforceable diversity criteria in the appointment process.
Connection to this news: The CJI's call for systemic change implicitly acknowledges that the collegium alone — without either statutory mandate or a finalised MoP — cannot reliably deliver gender balance. This creates the argument space for legislative or regulatory intervention.
Directive Principles and Equal Opportunity in Public Life
Articles 38, 39, and 39A of the Directive Principles of State Policy establish the State's obligation to ensure equal opportunity, social justice, and access to legal remedies for all citizens. While DPSPs are non-justiciable (Article 37), they guide both legislative and judicial policy. The underrepresentation of women in the judiciary is increasingly framed as a DPSP compliance deficit.
- Article 38: State shall strive to minimise inequalities in status, facilities, and opportunities — not just between individuals but between groups.
- Article 39A: Free legal aid and equal justice — an equal opportunity legal system requires diverse dispensers of justice.
- Article 16(1): Equality of opportunity in matters of public employment — judicial appointment qualifies as public employment for constitutional purposes.
- Article 15(3): Special provisions for women — could constitutionally justify reserved or preferential pathways for women in HC/SC appointments.
- The Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney (1992) upheld reservations as compatible with merit — the same principle can apply to gender-targeted appointment policies in the judiciary.
Connection to this news: The CJI's call for "systemic changes" can be read as an implicit acknowledgment that DPSP obligations under Articles 38 and 39A require proactive measures, not just passive non-discrimination.
Key Facts & Data
- Women judges in SC (2024): ~6% (2 out of 34).
- Women judges in HCs (November 2024): ~13.76% (96 out of 719).
- First woman Chief Justice of a High Court: Justice Leila Seth, Himachal Pradesh HC (1991).
- Justice B.V. Nagarathna: First woman likely to become CJI — expected tenure: approximately 36 days (September 2027).
- India has no statutory quota for women in the higher judiciary — unlike countries such as South Africa (Constitutional Court transformation requirements) or Kenya (one-third gender representation rule under the 2010 Constitution).
- Gender Gap Index 2024 (WEF): India ranks 135th overall but 65th on political empowerment — illustrating the gap between representation in elected institutions and the judiciary.