Government lacks intent to achieve gender parity in courts: Ex-CJI

What Happened

A former Chief Justice of India publicly criticised the government for lacking genuine intent to ensure adequate representation of women judges in the higher judiciary.
The criticism cited the abysmally low percentage of women judges in both the Supreme Court and High Courts, and pointed to the government's role in delaying or not prioritising collegium recommendations for women candidates.
The statement reignited debate about whether the collegium system — the primary mechanism for appointing judges to the higher judiciary — systematically underrepresents women due to structural biases, opaque procedures, and a network that historically favours male senior advocates.
The criticism echoed a broader conversation at a legal conference where access to justice and diverse representation were key themes.

Static Topic Bridges

Collegium System and Appointment of Judges

The collegium system is the mechanism by which judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts are appointed in India. It evolved through three Supreme Court judgments — the Three Judges Cases — and has governed judicial appointments since 1993. Under this system, a collegium of senior judges recommends names, and the government's role is limited to seeking clarifications and returning recommendations; it cannot indefinitely sit on collegium recommendations.

First Judges Case: S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981) — held that the President's discretion in judicial appointments was supreme; "consultation" meant only advice, not binding recommendation.
Second Judges Case: Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (1993) — overruled the First Judges Case; "consultation" reinterpreted to mean "concurrence"; CJI's recommendation (after consulting two senior-most colleagues) is binding on the President for SC appointments.
Third Judges Case (1998, Presidential Reference): CJI must consult a collegium of four senior-most SC judges; their collective opinion prevails.
NJAC Act, 2014 (99th Constitutional Amendment): Created a National Judicial Appointments Commission including Law Minister and two eminent persons. Struck down by SC in Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (2015) as violative of judicial independence (basic structure).
Collegium for Supreme Court: CJI + 4 senior-most judges; for High Courts: CJI + 2 senior-most judges.

Connection to this news: The ex-CJI's criticism targets both the collegium and the government: the collegium for not proactively recommending enough women candidates, and the government for slow-walking those that are recommended.

Women's Representation in Higher Judiciary: Current Status

Despite comprising roughly half the population and a significant portion of law graduates, women remain severely underrepresented in India's higher judiciary. The structural bottleneck lies at the level of recommendations and appointments — the collegium's opaque processes and the senior bar's predominantly male network mean fewer women reach the critical threshold for collegium consideration.

As of November 2024: 2 women judges out of 34 in the Supreme Court (approximately 6%).
As of November 2024: 96 women out of 719 sitting High Court judges (approximately 13.76%).
Since independence: Only 11 women have served as SC judges out of 276 total — approximately 4%.
Highest representation: Sikkim HC (33%), Telangana HC (29.6%), Gujarat HC (27.5%).
Zero women judges: Uttarakhand, Meghalaya, Tripura High Courts.
Out of 192 collegium recommendations for High Courts analysed, only 37 were women.
India has never had a woman Chief Justice of India; Justice B.V. Nagarathna is next in line for a 36-day tenure as CJI in 2027.

Connection to this news: These statistics are the factual basis for the ex-CJI's criticism. They demonstrate that the underrepresentation is systemic — neither the collegium nor the government has treated gender diversity as a priority in the appointment pipeline.

Constitutional Framework for Judicial Appointments (Articles 124, 217, 222)

The Constitution provides that SC judges are appointed by the President "after consultation with" the CJI (Article 124(2)) and HC judges are appointed by the President after consultation with the CJI, the Governor, and the Chief Justice of the relevant High Court (Article 217). The collegium system re-interpreted "consultation" to mean "concurrence," effectively transferring appointment power to the judiciary.

Article 124(2): SC judges appointed by President after consultation with such judges as President deems necessary; for non-CJI appointments, CJI must be consulted.
Article 217(1): HC judges appointed by President after consulting CJI, Governor of the state, and Chief Justice of the HC concerned.
Article 222: Transfer of HC judges by President after consultation with CJI — applies to Chief Justices and puisne judges alike.
There is no constitutional provision requiring gender diversity in judicial appointments — it is a matter of policy and convention.
The government has announced policies for 50% representation of women in the judiciary in subordinate courts, but no such target applies to HC/SC appointments.

Connection to this news: The constitutional silence on gender diversity means that reform must come through either legislative action (risk of conflicting with the collegium system), or a collegium policy commitment to proactively recommend women candidates and hold the government accountable for delay.

Representation in the judiciary is not merely symbolic — it affects the quality of justice. Diverse benches are more likely to understand the lived experiences of litigants from marginalised communities, including women filing cases of domestic violence, sexual assault, property rights, and workplace discrimination. Articles 14 (equality), 15 (non-discrimination), and 16 (equality of opportunity in public employment) provide the constitutional foundation for demanding diverse representation in state institutions.

Article 15(3): The State may make special provision for women and children — basis for affirmative measures in judicial appointments.
Article 39A: Directive Principle — the State shall ensure that the operation of the legal system promotes justice on a basis of equal opportunity.
Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997): Landmark case on workplace sexual harassment — delivered by an SC bench; underscores the need for gender-sensitive judicial interpretation.
Law Commission of India Report 230 (2009) and several subsequent reports have recommended measures to increase women's representation in the bar and on the bench.

Connection to this news: The ex-CJI's comments connect the statistical deficit to constitutional obligations — particularly Article 39A — and the democratic imperative that institutions dispensing justice must reflect the diversity of those seeking it.

Key Facts & Data

India ranked 135th out of 146 countries on the WEF Global Gender Gap Index (2024).
2 women SC judges as of November 2024 (out of 34 total).
First woman SC judge: Justice M. Fathima Beevi (appointed 1989).
NJAC struck down: Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (October 2015) — five-judge bench, 4:1 majority.
Collegium resolutions are published on the SC website since 2019 (transparency reform following CJI Dipak Misra era controversy).